[MD] Knots
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Wed Oct 27 06:39:17 PDT 2010
p.s. You wrote "The Tao is unchangeable in the end, swinging back and
forth." I thought that the "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao."
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You surprise me. It sounds like you're going to wait for the Great White
> Scientific Hope, wearing a white hat, to ride up on his white horse, Physics,
> to save the day? As best I can figure out, most physicists are still scientific
> realists and ignore the quantum enigmas. It's interesting because I always
> thought the drive of the MoQ was to experience first-hand DQ, "pure
> experience" or the Undifferentiated Continuum, not just to talk about it.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:33 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I'll get to that book when I find it in the library, sounds interesting. If
>> one were to divide metaphysics into the contemplation of the subjective and
>> contemplation of the objective, I would state that the pendulum has swung
>> very far into the objective. The recent rise of esoteric religions such a
>> theosophy and new age dreams are adding weight to bring the pendulum back
>> down the other way. It is indeed dark ages for subjective contemplation,
>> and in that sense, man is at a very low point at this period in time.
>> Sciences such as physics are breaking through however and it is just a
>> matter of time. The Tao is unchangeable in the end, swinging back and
>> forth.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> Why wait for some scientific future to come true when there is an
>>> immediate need. There is this twenty-five hundred-year-old
>>> tradition that has been working on just such a science of mind.
>>> From what little I understand they use both rationality and special
>>> introspective techniques. To remind you:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Upon first learning of mental states described in traditions outside of
>>> one's, there is a natural tendency to seek counterparts in one's own
>>> background or in the knowledge of one's native culture. For many people it
>>> si difficult to acknowledge the possibility that the attainment of
>>> quiescence may have no counterpart in Western civilization, that the
>>> contemplative science of ancient India made advances that the West has not
>>> duplicated. Especially over the past five hundred years, the West has made
>>> tremendous advances in developing physical instruments to aid us in
>>> exploring the world. Such research instruments have enabled us to probe
>>> deeply into the nature of physical phenomena, but they offer no direct
>>> access to mental events. The mind is the only instrument capable of
>>> examining all types of natural events --- including both the physical and
>>> mental. But in terms of refining human awareness in the development of
>>> stability and clarity as described above, Western civllization has made no
>>> progress since the Scientific Revolution. In this field of contemplative
>>> science ours is a backward, underdeveloped culture. If we wish to explore
>>> these Buddhist theories and practices further, we are well advised to
>>> proceed not with blink faith, but with our full powers of critical
>>> intelligence. In so doing we follow the advice that the Buddha gave to his
>>> monks when he counseled:
>>>
>>> O monks, sages accept my words after examining them well--
>>> like gold after it has been melted, cut and rubbed--but not out
>>> of devotion [for me].
>>>
>>> (Wallace, B. Alan, 'Choosing Reality, : A Buddhist View of Physics and the
>>> Mind',2003,pp.198-199)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is some discussion on the use of the subject-object analogy in MOQ
>>>> discuss, and the attributes of Value to such an analogy. This bears
>>> inquiry
>>>> as it could also be interpreted that such an analogy is at the heart of
>>> many
>>>> religions. This SO divide brings out the search for the true subjective.
>>>> Vedic philosophy can be interpreted to have assigned such subjective the
>>>> “I”. That is the “I” that is witnessing what I appear to be. In such
>>>> philosophy, that subject is compared to a vibration or a hum. Buddhist
>>>> thought which arose from such Eastern tradition, used intelligent thought
>>> to
>>>> describe the subjective as not inherently existent, and described such a
>>>> concept with a co-dependent arising metaphor. More recently, Christian
>>>> metaphors were interpreted by Kierkegaard, who proposed that the ultimate
>>>> union of the subjective and objective could be achieved through extreme
>>>> belief and devotion, requiring a leap. Much existentialist
>>> interpretation
>>>> followed his lead, including Heidegger’s “Being”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In terms as what is referred to as Western philosophy, it is the opinion
>>> of
>>>> this author that the subject-object analogy was converted to an
>>>> object-object description. That is the comparison of two objects. Plato
>>>> provided such description by objectifying the subjective. More recently,
>>>> Descartes further congealed the objectification of subjectivity by
>>> defining
>>>> it as thought. The statement “I think, therefore I am” suggests that
>>>> thinking is the underlying presence of self. Previously, in the Eastern
>>>> thought described above, thinking was something that the self experienced
>>> as
>>>> an object. The description of the objectified sense of thought as the
>>>> subjective sense of "I" has more recently led to notions by scientific
>>>> materialism that the self can be explained physically through appropriate
>>>> investigation into the brain itself. Such studies are ongoing, but
>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Western considerations of the subject-object confused the subject with
>>> the
>>>> object. The metaphorical root of this transition could arise from the
>>> use
>>>> of language. As a matter of logistics, language must express the subject
>>>> object idea as object-object to be useful. Subject-object Metaphysics
>>>> cannot be discussed without the objectifying of the subjective side.
>>>> Indeed, the conversion of thought into words is a process of
>>>> objectification. Is this notion therefore something that creates a
>>>> roadblock and cannot be truly discussed due to the structure of language,
>>>> and something that we have no control over?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but consider the following thought experiment (science fiction
>>> as a
>>>> metaphor). At some time in the future, the principle of telepathy will
>>> have
>>>> been understood and harnessed. There would be direct communication
>>> between
>>>> brains through some kind of brain-wave harnessing. Would such
>>> communication
>>>> be in the form of words? The answer is no. There would be no need for
>>>> words since entire awareness could be communicated. Words would be
>>> bypassed
>>>> so that entire appreciations could be conveyed such as the sense one gets
>>>> when looking at a painting. This would mean that thoughts as words would
>>>> not be necessary, and words would only be used temporarily over long
>>>> distances if there were no other means of communication. Such words
>>> would
>>>> be considered primitive communication, like the telegraph is now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The awareness of how words form our subject-object metaphysics is, in the
>>>> opinion of this author, a fruitful interpretation which is provided as
>>>> analogy. Through the development of such metaphors it is possible to
>>>> appreciate (or create) some more meaningful underlying principles (or
>>>> metaphors).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The opinions expressed in this post are the author's and do not
>>> necessarily
>>>> represent positions of the MOQ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
___
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list