[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mornin' Dan,
>
> John prev.
>
>> "Sound" is defined by the physical impact of waves in a medium (air) upon
>> an
>> > eardrum.  Without an eardrum, there may be (and probably is) some sort of
>> > phenomenon but it can't be "sound".   From the subjective perception of
>> an
>> > air molecule, it's a tsunami.  From the subjective perception of a
>> planet,
>> > it's a tiny, imperceptible shiver.  From the subjective perception of an
>> > animal ear, it's a sound.  Take away a "hearer" and you've reframed the
>> > matrix of meaning which defines "sound".
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> No, no, no. How do you know a tree even falls if no one is around?
>>
>
> John:
>
> That is a good point.  My immediate answer is that it's given in the
> proposition IF a tree falls... but overall I'd say that a "tree falling" is
> a human conception of an event that has differing interpretations by
> differing levels of beings.  For instance, from the tree's point of view,
> there is no sound and it's not the tree that is falling, it's the whole
> world that suddenly upends.

Dan:

I would say "if" is a human concept that has differing levels of
interpretation, and in  this case, it is basically nonsense to answer
one way or another. Either way, you are assuming you know something
you can never know.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>
>> What tree? It's like asking if elephants could dance would they do the
>> mambo. Again, what tree is falling? In what forest? Context, John, it
>> is all about context. You're setting up an imaginary scenerio and
>> asking nonsensical questions about the result of something no one can
>> know.
>>
>>
>
> John:
>
> Well, I'd lay that accusation at the foot of whoever devised the koan in the
> first place... and to what purpose, may I ask?  Is it not to help us see
> that this phenomenon that we take for granted as objectively real, is only a
> reality in an "entanglement between" a knower and a known?  Therefore, when
> removing the knower, we remove the phenomenon as defined.  That seems the
> only point to the question that could possibly be construed, in a Zen
> context.

Dan:
We're approaching this from a Western prospective, of course. From my
(admittedly limited) understanding, the original purpose of zen koans
was to stop the monkeys chasing each other through the mind, that
infernal internal discourse that never ever shuts up. In other words,
there is no point in answering the question. It was never meant to be
answered.

>
>
>
>> > John:
>> >
>> > I'm reading and practicing meditation technique right now, and exploring
>> > this deeper so I reserve the right to change my mind after further
>> > experience :-).  But from where I'm at, I see this dynamism as arising
>> > conceptually, not pre-conceptually.  In fact, it's the very act of
>> creative
>> > conceptualization by which I define DQ.  Out of a chaotic matrix of
>> > sensation, we create our reality.  Every bit of it.  We don't do this all
>> by
>> > our selves,  I believe that DQ is fundamental to this process.    Perhaps
>> it
>> > will help our discussion if I contrast "conceptualization" and
>> > "intellectualization".
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> I don't think so. Conceptualization is the beginning of
>> intellectualization, yes. It is the realization of a potential pattern
>> emerging from Dynamic awareness. That is one reason why I never
>> cottoned to patterned/unpatterned being synonymous with
>> static/Dynamic. The expectation of a pattern isn't Dynamic Quality.
>> Confusion can arise if taken as so.
>>
>>
> John:  "Dynamic awareness" must be an awareness of some sort of pattern or
> concept, so I don't see how there can be any "emergence" from a pre-existing
> awareness when it is exactly that awareness which defines patterns (or
> concepts)

Dan:
Dynamic awareness is neither this nor that. Of course you cannot see
it. It comes as a complete surprise.

>John:
> However, I agree with your non-cottoning to "patterned/unpatterned".  I
> can't conceive of any kind of "unpattern" and thus I see no reason to
> mention that which I cannot concieve.  It's patterns, all the way down.  And
> I agree completely with you that expectation is not DQ.  Just the opposite,
> in fact.

Dan:
Experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. The defining of
experience is synonymous with static quality.

>
>
>
>> > John:  I agree that conceptualization comes before intellectualization.
>> > Intellectualization is thinking about concepts whereas concepts don't
>> > require intellect.  "hot" is a concept formed by nerves and hot stoves.
>> > Jumping is also a conceptualization.  Some of these nerve
>> conceptualizations
>> > occur outside of a brain, but they don't occur outside of a
>> nerve/organism.
>>
>> Dan:
>> And both conceptualization and intellectulization emerge from a dim
>> apprehension we know not what... Dynamic Quality.
>>
>>
>
> John:
>
> We've got these piles of sand, how we realize/conceptualize them in distinct
> patterns is a mystery that philosophy has been trying to solve forever.  The
> answer "DQ" makes a great deal of sense.  DQ is the patterning aspect of
> reality by which we realize all experience.   That's the way I look at it
> and it seems to me that we are on the same page there.

Dan:
There is no patterning aspect to Dynamic Quality. Once that happens,
it is gone.

>
>
>
>> Dan:
>> Each day is a clean slate on which I write of what I learn. I learn
>> from fools as well as scholars. I am not a philosopher... right now I
>> am more into historical fiction as far as my reading goes. I've
>> discovered a wonderful author named David Mitchell. Currently, I am
>> reading The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet... oh what wonderful
>> storytelling!
>>
>> But really, I read so I can write. All these stories I read turn into
>> a mish mash inside and I have to get it out somehow in a way not only
>> I can relate to but others as well. Philosophy books just don't do it
>> for me... I find the reading dry and unrelated to that which truly
>> holds my interests... storytelling. Robert Pirsig is of course an
>> exception...
>>
>>
> John:
>
> Well we're on the same page there too, Dan.  Except that I am a
> philosopher.  A very simplistic and neophyte philosopher, but nevertheless
> on a journey to explore "philos" and "sophia" - the wisdom of love.

Dan:

Oddly, I'm more a romantic. For philosophy is not wisdom of love... it
is love of wisdom. Otherwise, we really would be on the same page.


>
> John:
>
>
>> > So again, I ask you, how do you know that that tree did not make a
>> >> noise when it fell if no one was around?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I could equally ask, "how do you and your son  know it did?"  But I think
>> > I've answered this one adequately already.
>>
>> Dan:
>> No, you haven't. We knew by experience. How else would we?
>>
>>
> John:
>
> You found a tree in your experience, but that experience did not include the
> falling of the tree, just the evidence of a tree on the ground. Usually
> trees get on the ground by falling, but while it's improbable it is
> conceivable that the tree was gently laid upon the ground by logging
> helicopters.  What is the sound of a tree being laid on the ground by
> helicopters?

Dan:

Context, John... it's all about context. They don't log here. The
ground itself was indented by the fall. Other trees had been broken
when this one fell. The branches of this tree were embedded deeply in
the soil. And finally, the enormous root ball was still attached,
ripped right out of the ground. We of course searched the hole for
arrowheads and even found a couple broken ones.

All that is beside the point though... I merely offered it as a
humorous anecdote. I don't know if it made a noise when it fell. But
if it didn't, there's never been a noise made in the history of the
world.

>
> WhopWhopWhopWhopWhopWhopWhopWhopWhopWhop.
>
> Ok, what if they're stealth helicopters that make no sound?
>
> Then it sounds like this "                               ".

Dan:
Kind of like woof is the answer to does a dog have Buddha nature, or not, right?

>John:
> Thanks for the thought-experiments and happy Eclipsed solstice to you also,

Dan:
What thought experiments?

Dan