Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

The African and Caucasian minds: Differences in Hip Hop "styles". (1 Viewer)

Matthatter

Senior Member
The Caucasian mind, or being, differs from the African's in many aspects (one may say that their "souls" have easily distinguished ways of operating).

I will use Hip Hop as a means of discussing these differences, as I believe engaging in (the majority of) Hip Hop's elements--MCing, DJing, Dancing (whether popping, locking, bboying, etc), is the truest self-expression, the truest/freest "being" that one can have/do/be. A true dancer becomes the music: letting it move his body naturally (there are no ifs, ands, or buts; there is only the next step). The emcee channels words that fit a certain rhyme scheme.

What are the noticable differences between the (average) Caucasian emcee and the (average) African? Body movement and lyrical flow. Why is it that Caucasian Hip Hop heads so often lack "flavor"? Because their minds exist in abstraction; less of their consciousness is associated with the body.

For the African feeling -> Movement -> thinking, while for the Caucasian thinking -> movement ->feeling. The reason this is so, I believe, is because the caucasian mind has evolved through years of abstraction. Why abstract? To overcome obstacles, to achieve goals. (Ignoring cultural and political conditions; ignoring society altogether) Is it easier to live in very cold climates, or mild to hot climates? Which takes more effort, planning, and abstraction to secure survival? Abstract thinking--a dissociation with the body/present environmental conditions--is emphasized in the Caucasian mind, while the African's mind is more in touch with the present environment. I am not saying one is worse, or the other is better (but one or the other would, mostly likely, prove more efficient for different tasks).

The African emcee molds his mind to the music, letting his lyrics fit into the environment's rhythm; while the Caucasian emphasized abstractions, remaining still in place as his mind actively searches for an answer in the ether.
 

Intel

Senior Member
What? I'm lost. Personally I think you chose the subject of hip-hop so your work wouldn't be seen as offensive and get deleted. You talk a lot of shit.
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
Ah man, I knew someone would get all emotional about this. What "shit" am I talking? Am I talking shit about whites, or blacks? I honestly don't know.

I explained why I chose the topic of hip hop. I wasn't aware I wrote anything negative about either of the minds' tendencies...
 

Intel

Senior Member
It wasn't really negative, just...rubbish. There I said it! :p
 
Last edited:

Matthatter

Senior Member
Wow, I've never seen so much bullshit in so few words. Care to (make a fool of yourself while you attempt to) explain why it's "rubbish"?
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
Why would I be bitter (it was you, in fact, who began spitting nonsense at me, only to alter your stance once I called you out on it)? I'm the logical one.
 

Intel

Senior Member
"one may say that their "souls" have easily distinguished ways of operating". The logic that is beyond all understanding...
 
Last edited:

Matthatter

Senior Member
Why? It follows from the previous statement, making it obvious that mind/being = soul, and that the differences in how they think are easily seen (through the examples I give, in the context of hip hop).

It's okay. Childish minds can't help but interpret text childishly. Maybe in a few years--if you humble yourself--you'll manage to grasp some of my (simpler) thoughts.
 

Intel

Senior Member
Yes, as black and white 'beings' are different, I didn't know beings/souls were tainted by colour but thank you for enlightening me...Oh humble master accept my sarcasm as a gift. :king:
 
Last edited:

Matthatter

Senior Member
Yes, as black and white 'beings' are different, I didn't know beings/souls were tainted by colour but thank you for enlightening me...Oh humble master accept my sarcasm as a gift.

The mind is filtered through the body in daily life (and while asleep--restricted by one's belief systems and association with the body).

Apparently my previous post didn't enlighten you. Hopefully you'll manage to not screw up my message this time around.
 

Intel

Senior Member
Its not right to say that the mind is filtered through the body as they're both infused with each other. A little filtered but not totally.

Secondly the mind isn't "restricted by one's belief systems and associations with the body" while asleep. During deep sleep the mind doesn't even exist. There isn't even the concept of 'I'. So during this time there is no mind to be restricted. As your consciousness becomes more gross the mind comes into being once again.

And last of all, I still don't see what you're trying to get across. Every individuals mind differs, black and white, white and white. Whats your point? But keep spouting that nonsense if it makes you feel better.:tongue:
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
Its not right to say that the mind is filtered through the body as they're both infused with each other. A little filtered but not totally.

It is right to say that the mind is filtered through the body. Do you think, during your waking consciousness, you ever perceive outside your physical senses? Saying that it isn't right because I didn't specify something else that happens is just being argumentative. You just said "A isn't right because there is both A and B!" You were hopeless from the start, admit that you attempted to use me as a scapegoat, and accept that I've easily refuted every "argument" you've made. I'm in a different league, Intel. Go back to the sandbox.


Secondly the mind isn't "restricted by one's belief systems and associations with the body" while asleep. During deep sleep the mind doesn't even exist. There isn't even the concept of 'I'. So during this time there is no mind to be restricted. As your consciousness becomes more gross the mind comes into being once again.

Why are you restricting the mind to the concept of "I"? "I" consciousness is just one way a mind can operate. You have heard of REM sleep, right? Have you considered I was referring to that? No, you didn't, because that wouldn't enable you to make such lazy, half-assed arguments, would it?

How do you know the mind doesn't exist while the body is in deep sleep? I only accept this argument if you restrict the "mind" to the perceptions of waking consciousness. How silly the "logical" materialists can be, when they make such absolute statements about things they couldn't possibly know.

And last of all, I still don't see what you're trying to get across. Every individuals mind differs, black and white, white and white. Whats your point? But keep spouting that nonsense if it makes you feel better.

Haha, "last of all", like you've even made one sensible point.

Yes, every individual differs mind to mind, but I am talking about the average for two types. You still haven't managed to explain why it's "nonsense". It is about something... it is sensible. I didn't say all white minds or black minds are the same. Why do you keep insulting me to try to save face when you were out of line to make the ignorant comments you made in the first place?

I am so tired of taking the care to emphasize certain things in my text, just to prevent impulsive egos from jumping to faulty conclusions, only to have to argue with those that do it anyways.
 

Intel

Senior Member
I said that the mind is not totally filtered through the body. Sometimes during the day you're not even aware of your body, such as when you're off daydreaming. Also if you've ever been in a deep meditative state you would know that one can have many out-of-body experiences. So I still disagree that the mind is totally filtered through the body. Or we can use your analogy, A can function seperately from B, although A is sometimes filtered through B.

Your second comment is funny. Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!? Everything that you've ever experienced, whether it be a thought or perception, has all happened through this sense of 'I'. Without 'I' there would be no world, for the world to exist for you there needs to be this 'I' that experiences it.

So unless you're some kind of sage that recognizes the impersonal nature of all things, including this 'I' thought then you've just made a ridiculous statement. Also even if you were a sage and believed the world to be one, you would still experience things through 'I', just at a deeper level.

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:

ieuan

Senior Member
I thought the article was unscientific. It was a poor attempt to show racial differences. In the first few sentences you lapsed from mind into soul, then trivialised the whole thrust of your thought by inexplicably drifting in to hip hop, a behavioural pattern of dance which has nothing to do with quality of a man's brain.

I thought Intel took the bait too easily and got dragged into a meaninglass debate. In short I think the article is classical flaming.

All brains in all human being are essentialy the same, although it is a scientific fact that Asian brains are larger than the rest of humanity, no one knows why. Some speculate it is because Asians are the oldest peoples. But I don't think much of that argument.

The quality and make up of our brains is the same throughout the world so why do we behave differently? It is of course because of cultural differences and language. Our upbringing and the way we relate to each other with patterns and structre of society all have an input into our personality, and how we think and how we bahave.

So that's the end of that silly discussion. No more to be said, is there?

I feel silly now having fallen and willingly engaged in such a topic.
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
I thought the article was unscientific.

I didn't attempt to make it "scientific".


It was a poor attempt to show racial differences.

Not really. I did what I did. If something this short was too difficult for you, why would I bother going deeper from the very beginning?

In the first few sentences you lapsed from mind into soul,

Lapsed? Excuse me? I am explaining the terms. Why do people think their confusion = writer's confusion? The greek 'psych' refers to mind, being, soul.


then trivialised the whole thrust of your thought by inexplicably drifting in to hip hop, a behavioural pattern of dance which has nothing to do with quality of a man's brain.

Drifting? I had the idea to explain the difference in the context of hip hop from the very beginning. I wrote the title before anything else. How is it triviliazing? It's a single example that clarifies their differences in being.

What do you mean dancing has nothing to do with a man's brain?

I thought Intel took the bait too easily and got dragged into a meaninglass debate. In short I think the article is classical flaming.

And you're wrong to think that. I'm not saying either side is good or bad. Don't restrict me to your own mental limitations.

All brains in all human being are essentialy the same, although it is a scientific fact that Asian brains are larger than the rest of humanity, no one knows why. Some speculate it is because Asians are the oldest peoples. But I don't think much of that argument.

Essentially the same, because they have a lot in common?

The quality and make up of our brains is the same throughout the world so why do we behave differently?

Again, the wuality and make up is not "the same". That is just an example of how arrogant people can be when they first start to understand (how many) things (are alike).


It is of course because of cultural differences and language.

That's part of it, of course.

Our upbringing and the way we relate to each other with patterns and structre of society all have an input into our personality, and how we think and how we bahave.

So that's the end of that silly discussion. No more to be said, is there?

No that's not. It;s the end of your useless input, however.

I feel silly now having fallen and willingly engaged in such a topic.

Better than feeling like the idiot that you are.
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
I said that the mind is not totally filtered through the body. Sometimes during the day you're not even aware of your body, such as when you're off daydreaming. Also if you've ever been in a deep meditative state you would know that one can have many out-of-body experiences. So I still disagree that the mind is totally filtered through the body. Or we can use your analogy, A can function seperately from B, although A is sometimes filtered through B.

I've had plenty of out of body experiences, but that is why I said "associations with the body". You still perceive the environment in a way habitual to your waking life's memory. You're finding conflict where there is none. Karma is essentially habit, and it follows into dreams, meditative states, etc. Buddhsm attempts to quiet and control the mind as an attempt to break habits (reducing one's wants/needs, becoming (more) content). This is Karma for the Hindus, and is helped by behavioral therapy and lots of careful philosophy here in the West.




Your second comment is funny. Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!? Everything that you've ever experienced, whether it be a thought or perception, has all happened through this sense of 'I'. Without 'I' there would be no world, for the world to exist for you there needs to be this 'I' that experiences it.

First off, you'd really help me out if you used quotes. Frankly, I don't trust your explanation of what I said, and sometimes I have to look back to see exactly how I worded it (you should take advantage of this care instead of rushing to faulty conclusions when a perceived conflict (in your definitions) gets you all excited).
Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!?

No it isn't. First off, explain what the hell "I" is. What is the concept? WHat exactly is one, before they are an "I"? What grants them "I" hood?

I didn't perceive through a cultural belief of what distinguishes one "I" from another when I was an infant. If one can perceive it then, why can't there be moments where "self-consciousness" isn't conscious? When you are so engrossed in a moment you aren't conscious you are thinking (this is not "I" consciousness). This is why people are happier doing some modest gardening then riding around in their boat. How would I know? Because I remember moments where my full concentration went on a certain task, and I wasn't currently "thinking" at all. I was just perceining... taking in a stimulus, and creating an output, no mediating it with how it relates to one's self. We have moments like this several times a day, if even for a few moments. Just because one has been engrained with an idea of what "I"ness is doesn't mean it persists for every moment (waking or dreaming) of one's life.

Were you raised religious or something? Your mind seems very... devotional, to certain cultural beliefs. It's like your proposing some God granted these beings this "I"ness, and that is what they are from the start... an infant is born and, somehow objectively, it is distinguished as special from the rest (simply because the nervous system makes sensations on this "body" easily conscious to the mind that perceives them). So yes, this infant, as soon as it is born (or conceived, for that matter!) is infused with an "I" consciousness that its similar species has imagined up and memorized through the years of written history. That's your stance?


So unless you're some kind of sage that recognizes the impersonal nature of all things, including this 'I' thought then you've just made a ridiculous statement. Also even if you were a sage and believed the world to be one, you would still experience things through 'I', just at a deeper level.

Comapred to you, I am indeed. After all, I was talking impersonally and nonjudgementally about the general differences between two races' (average) minds, and you start going off like I'm some racist. You're just trying to save face now, since I see this "I"ness is so vital to your being. That's called egoism.

As for the last part, how do you know that's not what I'm doing right now? I'm telling you, you don't know shit, and I'm only being this blunt because you were asking for it from the very start with this ridiculous mix of ignorance and arrogance. I don't give a shit about my self-concept, I have become honest with who I am (and that is why I can comfortably by honest about the differences in others without judging them as "Good" or "Bad".)

I'm in a completely different mindset from you, Intel. Save these posts, you might enjoy it in a few years.

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.

Okay. Well I just explained things for you further. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, you might just want to admit that you're not yet on my level, and quit. It's so obvious, to me... but you're not yet reasonable naturally; you are struggling to be. My mind naturally thinks reasonably, and I actively think creatively. It's very fun, once you understand this "I"ness is bullshit and you stop taking it so seriously (as long as you can utilize it to survive, fuck it. Why limit yourself to an ego through which you label yourself "Good" or "Bad" according to your merits through a cultural scoring system? Good-Enjoy the moment. Bad-Don't intrude on other's ability to enjoy the moment.
 
Last edited:

Intel

Senior Member
Comapred to you, I am indeed. After all, I was talking impersonally and nonjudgementally about the general differences between two races' (average) minds, and you start going off like I'm some racist. You're just trying to save face now, since I see this "I"ness is so vital to your being. That's called egoism.

Ha! Now you're lecturing me on the ego. Mate i'm past all that new age shit. Let me quote you a true master.

Mooji: " ' I need help' is the important statement here. It is wise to seek help, until you go beyond the need for help. Not the arrogance which claims 'There's no one to be helped, no I, no you. No one exist, only that which Is', which though true when spoken through the mouth of the sage, is completely false when uttered from the ego mind- the ego rising through the intellect posing as some kind of spiritual hero. This understanding cannot be grafted onto the ego-centred mind, for true understanding dissolves the seeker-ego. There is no one left to claim freedom as an achievement."

Compared to me you're a sage, who are you fooling? That statement clearly rose out of the ego. Maybe you need to spend more time under the bhodi tree practicing your mantras burning or burning incense.

This is why people are happier doing some modest gardening then riding around in their boat. How would I know? Because I remember moments where my full concentration went on a certain task, and I wasn't currently "thinking" at all. I was just perceining... taking in a stimulus, and creating an output, no mediating it with how it relates to one's self. We have moments like this several times a day, if even for a few moments. Just because one has been engrained with an idea of what "I"ness is doesn't mean it persists for every moment (waking or dreaming) of one's life.

'I AM' is not false, only what comes after it. I am this or I am that. Or in your case, you derive your sense of self from a particular race. However without the thinking mind 'I AM' remains. It simply isn't the false 'I am' based on past. Or the ego. Whatever happens, even if a God were to appear before you, you would have to present to witness it. 'I' would have to be there to know this.

God didn't come and tell me that I am. The world didn't come and tell me that I am. Its like Sri Nisargadatta said "What is mine is mine and was mine even when God was not". Just little thing called 'I'.

I don't give a shit about my self-concept, I have become honest with who I am (and that is why I can comfortably by honest about the differences in others without judging them as "Good" or "Bad".)

You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now. Why are you still a seeker?

I'm in a completely different mindset from you, Intel.

Thats true, a different mindset, yet still trapped in the mind. You haven't escaped samsara yet my friend. :-({|=
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
I didn't know you could get any more foolish. Are you completely projecting yourself onto me or something? Nothing you have said about me has been true.

Just because you jumped into New Agey stuff when I mentioned "Ego", and ran with all that, doesn't mean I'm a "new Ager". When are you going to see that you are the prejudiced one? You're the one that just pasted a couple of quotes from "masters" because you couldn't make a decent argument on your own.

You don't even know what you're arguing about... you just argue about a different thing from post to post, and I refute them all. This is ridiculous. Give up. You responded to my thread as an asshole, fooling yourself into thinking I was the asshole, and all I have been doing is pointing out to you, time and time again, that everything you say is flawed, and everything you do at this point is to save face. Go buy yourself a dog and pride yourself in being a "good master" or something. You're a waste of my time.


Or in your case, you derive your sense of self from a particular race.

Are you kidding me? What is this supposed to mean? Read my posts again. And again, and again. I can't believe you are this stupid. You are paying no attention to what I have said. You're a disgusting creature of habit. Grow up, little ape.

God didn't come and tell me that I am. The world didn't come and tell me that I am. Its like Sri Nisargadatta said "What is mine is mine and was mine even when God was not". Just little thing called 'I'.

:pukel:

You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now. Why are you still a seeker?]

Middle eastern beliefs? Excuse me? Stop profiling me based on prejudice, I talked about a great deal more than "karma". It really sounds like you're just projecting the shit that you know you are (from how you used to be, before you were "passed the new age shit").

Give it up, Intel. Hve you ever met a mentally challenged person? Someone with downed syndrome, maybe? No joke, your mind is to theirs as mine is to yours.

Thats true, a different mindset, yet still trapped in the mind. You haven't escaped samsara yet my friend.

Never claimed I have. Is that some kind of argument against my defense against your original argument that my first post was rubbish? You're all over the place trying to point out flaws in ME rather than flaws in particular argument relating to specific points.

Do the world of intelligent people a favor and take a vow of silence, ok? Please.
 

Matthatter

Senior Member
You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now. Why are you still a seeker?]

HABIT/KARMA! Damn. Does your fly-like mind exist merely to test my patience? One can understand the invalidity of "I"ness while still suffering (from it), because one's patterns of thought have been so grounded in the context of that "I"ness. How could you be serious in that claim? Please, don't answer that. It would be no more than a (more) complicated grunt, anyways.
 
Top