I guess I didn’t directly address Neil’s disappointment around authority figures enough. And, yes, I am a disciple in the sense of being a scientific experimenter of/with the psyche. All of the great teachers I have had, from Gautama to Ichazo, have uttered similar words that appeal to the healthy skeptic…accept nothing they say without first finding it out for one’s self.
Even with the above admonition firmly in place, taking that further critical look as you have done, all too often such ‘great men’ live lives open to personalized criticism. This apparent corruption and hypocrisy used to bother me. However, no longer do I evaluate the experience and wisdom of others by such standards. Regardless of opinions to the contrary, I do not equate wisdom with action, although there can be a correlate. Again, as a sort of psyche scientist, I separate the wheat from the chaff. I also reflect on peer reviews as well as studying other ‘publications’. On Oct 26, 8:40 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > One interest of mine in this Orn is the overlap between this kind of > writing and mainstream philosophy (actually something more esoteric > than Wallace). Einstein once said god had cursed him, the anti- > authoritarian, by making him an authority. I shy away from the notion > of personalised authority, sages and so on, as they are usually > disappointments, often corrupt. This said, other people can often > help with what is missing inside me by sharing their experience. I > think, in terms we might share, there is profit in such and one we > shouldn't be embarrassed to acknowledge. You are something of a > disciple Bill - no harm in that as long as the boss ain't got horns > and ice-cold semen. Even if the latter were true, I might stick > around at the length of a sturdy barge pole, for the laughs. I could > once sit through Hamlet being bored and not knowing the plot. Now > enlightened, I sit bored knowing the plot. In the process I have > learned, though not to like Shakespeare. This will be a bit > lengthy ... > JD Bernal (1954) Science in History Vol. 3 (of 6). > 'From 1880 onwards government policy, particularly foreign and > colonial policy, has largely been dictated by the urge to secure > greater shares of the world markets for the products of monopoly > enterprises, especially in the export of such capital goods as steel > and machinery. This is the pattern of imperialism - once profoundly > flaunted, now a reproach that needs to be explained away - which in > one form or another, under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes, > remains the dominant form of capitalism. .... Hence the many wars, > small and large, which have plagued the world these last 70 years. > War and war preparations have also themselves been an essential outlet > for the products of the most powerful monopoly firms in the steel and > chemical industries. > ... Disarmament is feared and is being continually put off by the > Western powers, as much for economic as for political reasons. > > I've actually been reading this old marxist to check out feelings that > most people still have no clue about science that is more than 50 > years old. His reporting of actual science is very similar to today's > New Scientist. Bernal is immensely erudite and accurate on the > science itself, though totally conned by the Sino-Soviet Paradise. > One could almost read 'Haliburton' into the passage above. Two years > after publication, Britain, France and America were at each others > throats over domination of the Middle East - the US won the prize (a > poison chalice?) - and I would say most people still haven't got the > simplified but accurate economic message - one Bernal did get right > whilst not understanding 'socialism' at all and being totally conned > by propaganda. One can find most of what is still wrong in the world > 60 years on in this book, and the author's answer utterly disgraced > and destroyed. China, rather than being a socialist success, has > rather destroyed illusions about freedom and lack of State in > capitalism. > > My point here is not direct. I believe we do now have some kind of > almost objective review of what is going on in the world. It is this > that is continually being put off - almost the very idea that we can > have objective review (at least in approximation). It doesn't need to > rely on personal authority figures - these may well be part of the > blocks put on by the 'old enemies' - the notion things are so > difficult we need them blocking what can be made obvious. 'They' may > be quite happy as long as we are serfs, not necessarily theirs, but of > someone. My guess is that we need arguments in the realm of > simplexity to return to an honesty in which an individual acting for > the benefit of all is close enough to raise a glass to and not some > great leader. > > On 26 Oct, 07:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I rather like this guy and thanks for introducing him Orn. This > > didn't work for me, though it is important for something I want to > > write and can't find the words for. Essentially, 'will' tends to > > have > > operational definitions and I felt the paper left me wondering on the > > creation of 'conditions of existence'. I preferred some early work > > you recommended. He is worth reading. > > > Buddhist epistemology, ontology and philosophy, although in no way > > monolithic, do address such things [operational definitions & > > conditions of existence] Neil. And, you are exactly correct…the > > current paper was edited and selected from a longer talk for inclusion > > in a slick and popular journal with pretty pictures and poetry for the > > masses. One can easily see from the list of the other topics covered > > in the specific edition from which the current paper was extracted > > what a mixed bag the publication is. > > >http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2009/jan/default.asp > > > I have subscribed to it over the years and know the main editor and a > > few of the contributors. As such publications go, I recommend it. > > > http://www.mandalamagazine.org/ > > > And, at the risk of appearing to be an apologist, Alan is relatively > > young and merely has a fairly unique set of experiences to go with his > > erudite style. Listening to him lecture one finds a wide range of > > topics, levels of and methods of scientific, philosophical and > > theological presentations etc. One can imagine the wide mix of people > > attracted to his retreats! > > > His gift for languages coupled with years living with HHDL and > > monastic study allow him a rare access to and understanding of > > thousands of years of what for many of us would be esoteric texts. > > Couple this with his studies in psych and physics, for a Westerner, he > > is one of the very few to be able to clearly present and synthesize > > the many different schools of thought and science. I know of only two > > of his ‘elders’ alive today who might have greater insight into the > > lineage and tenets of Buddhism, Sanskrit etc. and neither has > > equivalent Western scientific credentials. Namely: > > > Robert Thurmanhttp://www.bobthurman.com/and > > > Jeffrey Hopkinshttp://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/hopkins.html > > > Both currently are more published than the younger Wallace is. In the > > long run, I expect Alan to ‘catch up’ with and possibly eclipse them. > > All three often translate for HHDL. > > > You might want to peruse a list of Wallace’s writings for a more > > attractive and less ‘popularized’ topic. > > >http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm > > > A local Institute for graduate studies in this area, although recently > > created, is well established…I used to study with and socialize with > > its founder on occasion. http://www.maitripa.org/ > > > Overall, you are welcome Neil. Other than the small self > > aggrandizement by association found above, my motivation in sharing > > what I have learned is rather Buddhist in nature – for the benefit of > > all - and is strictly not for profit. > > > On Oct 25, 9:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I rather like this guy and thanks for introducing him Orn. This > > > didn't work for me, though it is important for something I want to > > > write and can't find the words for. Essentially, 'will' tends to have > > > operational definitions and I felt the paper left me wondering on the > > > creation of 'conditions of existence'. I preferred some early work > > > you recommended. He is worth reading. > > > > On 25 Oct, 11:54, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…Each partner encourages and motivates the other into > > > > activities and goals they might not have otherwise pursued on their > > > > own. …” – DJ > > > > > Don, while just today, I had a similar thought, my guess is that the > > > > professionals on this list will make it clear that we have merely > > > > chosen our parents to ‘marry’ and continue the unfinished process of > > > > our youth. > > > > > On Oct 25, 4:32 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Bagginses don't go adventuring... > > > > > > it's considered disreputable behavior and generally frowned upon. > > > > > Unless one has a very powerful wizard kicking your butt out the > > > > > door... > > > > > > Come to think of it; all my life's big changes I was pretty much > > > > > dragged into kicking and screaming. Metaphorically speaking. All my > > > > > planned changes have been relatively methodical and boring. > > > > > > My current epiphany explains the usefulness of marriage in the success > > > > > of the family. Each partner encourages and motivates the other into > > > > > activities and goals they might not have otherwise pursued on their > > > > > own. Acting as each others own bullying wizard. Have we as a society > > > > > made it far too easy to raise ones kids on ones own? Ok, now I'm > > > > > descending into do do, Sorry. > > > > > > dj > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:03 AM, frantheman > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > There's a lot of interesting stuff here, Orn, imo, some very good > > > > > > observations. A few short comments: > > > > > > > One approach which I find useful is the question: "Freedom from > > > > > > what?" > > > > > > - and the implication, freedom for what? > > > > > > > Regrettably, Wallace occasionally wanders into the (false) dichotomy > > > > > > free/not-free, although I appreciate that it's difficult not to when > > > > > > trying to make arguments in this context. That said, his basic > > > > > > intent > > > > > > seems to be to go beyond this dialectic. This problem arises > > > > > > frequently in many presentations of Buddhist teaching when people > > > > > > work > > > > > > with the image of not-enlightened/enlightened - although I think > > > > > > that > > > > > > this has more to do with the difficulty of expressing some ideas in > > > > > > clear language/argument. > > > > > > > I find the ideas he develops from the concept of Vajrayana > > > > > > interesting. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
