[MD] [Bulk] Re: Knots

[118]

Twirling is one of my specialties if you haven't already noticed.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> 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
>