[?]the feelings of love is one of the most tender, soft and warm emotion in all the living beings. Since time immemorial its a great subject of discussion amongst the human beings. Several times I wonder about the source of its origin. From where it originates and how far it effects out lives.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Today's Topic Summary > > Group: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - Different points of view. <#1254618ab0f0853f_group_thread_0> [3 > Updates] > > Topic: Different points of > view.<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/e352b1aa9c1664fe> > > archytas <[email protected]> Nov 30 03:29AM -0800 > > Good form Georges - shall I now accuse you of being in denial so we > can kill some more trees wondering why that isn't science? We tend to > write Curate's Eggs. > > There is a serious point for me in wondering how what we can know of > science 'translates' into much more ordinary thinking that generally > leads much less conclusively to experiment. Something has to be > better than Nazi and Soviet Paradise or the dumb-irrational quasi- > capitalism that is, despite being so obviously flawed. Your notion > that words 'hint' is a good one, somewhat belied by your tendency to > silence others (though for god's sake some need a sock in the mouth)! > > > > > > nominal9 <[email protected]> Nov 30 08:22AM -0800 > > Emptiness merely means the > truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought > arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If > they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are > involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a > part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it > is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related > directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all > identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’. > > > There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is > the absolute/objective ‘mind’. > > > And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too. > > > On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to > western > thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical > views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find > themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to > understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no > ‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual > ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their > thinking…but not in any other way. / ornamentalmind > > Now this has some meat to it, Orn,... but I wonder if you aren't > making some sort of mistake in the way that you "posit" or define the > word-term "mind" in the one case as opposed to the other what you call > the distinction between .... relative/subjective 'mind' as > distinguished from absolute/objective "mind"? > Is a person of "two minds" (I ask in pun)?.... Now, considering the > little that I do know about contemplative or meditative philosophies > (Little, I said).....Where do the two "minds" reside?... Is the > relative/subjective 'mind' particular and peculiar to the single > person? But is the absolute/objective 'mind' somehow "outside" the > person (if northing else in the sense of having an existence or a > status apart from the particular and peculiar single person? Is the > absolute/ objective mind a "state of consciousness that the mind has > to attain... go to, to use a spatial term? > > I have to say, in warning... whenever I hear anyone say "objective > mind" I pretty much automatically think, "phenomenologist"... my > personal bane, althiough it is an "epistemological option up to each > individual.s "choice" to decide. > > A little disjointed as to sequence but... to get back to the relative/ > subjective mind... can it "exist" (in the sense of function, if > nothing else) in the absence of those exrternal "stimuli" from > "something" external to it?... what's the separation point or the"cut- > off" betwen the outside "thing" and the stimulus to the senses or > otherwise...( intellect or emotion, as examples of otherwise). In > consequence... are all such relative/subjective "thoughts" part of the > mind or are they ONLY "specific thoughts/words etc. are > involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a > part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation" (your > words)?... I hope you see where I'm going with this... if my relative/ > sibjective thoughts of an "outside" thing are part and parcel of the > said "thing"... then any "mistakes" I may have in my understanding of > the said thing are because the thing "Lied" to me???? > nominal9 > > > > > > ornamentalmind <[email protected]> Nov 30 08:50AM -0800 > > “Now this has some meat to it, Orn,...” – nom > > Thanks. > > “… but I wonder if you aren't making some sort of mistake in the way > that you "posit" or define the word-term "mind" in the one case as > opposed to the other what you call the distinction between .... > relative/subjective 'mind' as distinguished from absolute/objective > "mind"?” – nom > > First, I wish to give a philosopher, Ichazo, full credit for this > philosophy of 3 minds including the specific terms. I have studied him > for many years now and personally find that his analysis here is spot > on. So, it is not my positing, just my recognition of the truth of his > independent and original work. > > This said, I find no mistake in the core integral philosophy. > > You continued with specific questions, some of which I’m not sure I > can clarify. As to inside/outside, consciousness itself is neither. > Consciousness is one. Here I will conflate what is a pure presentation > by an analogy with what little I know about the Buddhist Mind Only > schools. It is a very similar view. > > Now as to attainment, your questions do follow my partial > presentation. I did list two minds, the relative and the absolute. > What may clarify most of your questions including the apparent duality > is that there is a 3rd mind in this philosophy along with a coherent > praxis of so achieving. This is the ornamental mind. (Ichazo) This > mind is the union of the relative and the absolute, consubstantially. > > In a nutshell, that is it. And, rather than address your valid > questions that were based on my partial presentation last time, I’ll > await your intake of the complete thing. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > -- with regards, Hem Joshi http://sites.google.com/site/joshygfamily/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
<<B0C.gif>>
