[MD] Knots

Wed Oct 27 10:58:27 PDT 2010

Hi Marsha,
That is exactly what I do every morning.  How did it get on youtube?  Where
are the hidden cameras?
Mark

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCrI4Za-f8&feature=related
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:08 PM, 118 wrote:
>
> > No, no answers, just ideas.  I use you guys to help me out.  Your posts
> are
> > like gold.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
>