[MD] A "Real" Science of Mind

[118]

Hi J-A,
What you say below is true.  There is also the notable phenomenon of
wisdom arising from repetition.  While the novelty of any truth
diminishes, if we relegate it to a has been, we miss much in the
moment.  I think this is the criticism of static quality.  You know,
been there, done that, all fit nicely into a box.  What one does
through Zen practice is avoid that static trap, and regard each moment
as a new one; beginner's mind.  This takes practice, which may seem
counterintuitive.  That is, doing the same thing over and over so that
we do not feel we are doing it over again.  One can get lost in
routines, and live somewhere else in ones head while doing them, or
one can pay attention (mindfulness).  In this way the static is
converted back to the dynamic.  We have the power to control the
interplay between dynamic and static, it's all in our heads.  This is
what part of ZMM was about.

In my opinion, of course,
Mark

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I realized that I didn't laugh that much the second time I watched John
> Cleese at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo
>
> Is this because the dynamic pattern of the sketch is transformed into static
> pattern? The healing power of an explanaton is thus lost when served a
> second time and the price of last years models is more than halfed. Truth is
> perishable and only valid once for the actual event and the subject wherever
> it appears...
>
>
> Jan-Anders
>
>
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org skrev 2010-12-21 03.25:
>>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> Thanks for the Opinionater.  Yes, scientific materialism.  And then
>> there is the other side which claims just as righteously that the
>> brain cannot be extrapolated to the mind.  Whatever the case,
>> psychology has been a good source of money for many, and keeps people
>> busy with explanations.  There is no doubt that these "explanations"
>> have healing power for some, and therefore cannot be discounted.
>> There is also the evil side of psychology which is why I consider W.
>> James to have sold out just a bit.
>>
>> What a conundrum, damned if we do, damned if we don't.  Can't get a
>> fair shake in this world where we need to know.  Who stole my cheese?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:04 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >  ? ? "First, it provides little insight into psychological phenomena...
>>> >
>>> >  ? ? Second, brains-in-love talk conflates levels of explanation.
>>> >
>>> >  ? ? The third thing wrong with neurobabble is that it has pernicious
>>> > feedback effects on science itself. ?Too much immature science has received
>>> > massive funding, on the assumption that it illuminates psychology. ?The idea
>>> > that the neural can replace the psychological is the same idea that led to
>>> > thinking that all psychological ills can be cured with drugs."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/a-real-science-of-mind/
>>> >
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>