[MD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Knots
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Wed Oct 27 08:37:43 PDT 2010
It seems like you have all the answers already. Okay.
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:42 AM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
> You will find me full of surprises, I have to walk on a razor's edge
> sometimes. You have noted that physics (Wallace) is providing some support
> for Eastern thought through analogies in physics. Physics is an excellent
> tool because of its high standing in our current society. It is a matter of
> convincing, and all descriptions are analogies which subscribe to common
> sense. You are correct in the assumptions of truth being held by many
> scientific realists. There are many philosophers that point out its
> shortcomings. But, if the intention is to return back to a more subjective
> appreciation, any tool will do. I am not waiting, I am just watching. I
> have not control over any crowd behavior, I don't think you do either. But
> what do I know, you may be stirring your cauldron right now (smiley face).
>
> I believe we experience DQ through every moment of each day. The reflective
> consciousness as discussed in Vedic thought is something that I take to mean
> that mirror of the world that is created in a highly structured way by our
> brains in order to interact in as simple a way as needed. Reflection may be
> considered one step removed (however it can also be classified as DQ since
> it happens in real time, in the present), buy how often are we reflecting?
> Out of the thousand of things that we experience every minute, only a few
> of those are contemplated. No effort is needed to obtain first hand DQ, all
> it takes is some discipline in mindfulness to recognize it. This is the Zen
> way. We have discussed this before, and indeed it is discussed in ZMM when
> attention is payed to motorcycle maintenance. If we are expecting something
> more, then there are always drugs...Once they legalize Mary Jane here in CA
> there may be lots of DQ, right before the car crash.
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:49 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> 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
>>
> 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