[MD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Knots
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Wed Oct 27 11:18:30 PDT 2010
Hard to catch you twirling, whirling dervish types...
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:09 PM, 118 wrote:
> 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.
>>
___
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list