[MD] [Bulk] Re: Knots

[MarshaV]

I thought as much.  Grace.  Finesse.  And incredible twirls...   




On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:58 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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.