The writing style is an intended 'trap' as I think you guess. There is a soft landing, as my intent is as pure as I can make it. Your response was splendid in prose and raises many of the problems. One can trace the language issues from Duns Scotus and Occham and on the the sign, signifier and signifed (whatever they are). I hope we can do better than Wittgenstein's cryptology. I can't respond directly just now - Scotland's crushing 9 - 8 victory over the Australians repeats on television shortly.
On 22 Nov, 13:53, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > So Neil, I may be but rehashing that which has been cooked and > reheated ad nausea. Accepting that caveat and plunging blindly if not > gingerly ahead, I find one request for a sharing by me, apparently > around the process??? I can only guess that you are at least > suggesting an honest reporting of results perhaps along with notes > about the process and, using your term, heuristic implemented. I > hesitate to project much more because as is often the case, your > esoteric writing style lends itself to appearing to be a > multidimensional and faintly directed analogical report with hints of > soft requests and attitudes. I will do my best to learn the native > language. > > To some terms I can only guess might be productive starting tenets of > inquiry to implement, I will grab onto “a range of imagery” and how > this affects us all…you included. > > Later, you suggest a sharing of failures. . . at once surprising and > puzzling for me…and, yes I find it to be my lack here. My personal > ‘style’ has almost been crystallized into the form of ignoring that > which is already ‘working’ and looking to change/improve etc. that > which appears to be a problem/issue. I seem to faintly remember > postings by you pointing out complete philosophical vistas that you > have somehow concluded just do not work. . . at least not for you. > With this assumption, I can appreciate how the appearance of > evangelism raising its ugly head when a meditative fanatic who is > learning how to write including how to persuade, begins to impose an > entire epistemology with foreign trappings to boot upon the reader(s) > might be interpreted. Hopefully, and without falling back on the well > indoctrinated social dogma learned at a mother’s knee concerning > polite behavior, which in and of itself appears to offend, I will be > able to find an oasis from which to begin clearing paths through the > undergrowth of diverse experiences with the goal of a meeting perhaps > not unlike that of Dr. Livingston. Of course, my fantasy is that of > being the reporter when I might in fact appear to be more the > missionary. Either way, I AM thankful to be here…and look for more > welcoming language. Yet another clue about my essential and > existential attitudes might be found in one of my all time favorite > movies, “My Dinner With Andre.” > > Another possible beacon is the inclusion of your imagery of a sharing > of the same light, of which I have little doubt…only finding the > cumbersome terminology and stories implemented in interaction to so > far be barely translucent and more often on the opaque end of the > scale. So, from whence must the source of radiance come? > > Polar observations from remote places are thrown on the flickering > screen. However, I suspect the islander to be female and to be life- > size when it comes to attitudes…unless more damaged than I already > suspect. > > So…back to the ferreting out of canards and deciding on methodology > and the valuation of judgments when it comes to self realization. > Also, how this solitary pursuit can interface with the myriad of > surrounding apparitions both sighted and electronic mouthing off using > the language of snake oil salesmen. > > **** looking for a wise language instructor **** > > On Nov 22, 4:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think both points you make are 'razor sharp' Orn. The 'Razor' is, > > of course, a heuristic, a bit like those finger-breaking rules of > > thumb in electro-magnetics. The notion of 'active hunger' is, to me, > > Kantian, an admission about the pursuit of Reason perhaps as much > > driven as the 'sex drive' (more of a dribble in my case these days). > > > I find myself wanting to know more about how this 'stuff' works for > > you Bill (forgive the shorthand 'stuff'). I don't think you'll mind > > me mentioning a private missive between us here. I took your offer > > 'not to bother me with godswank' rather kindly (on both our parts), > > though a misinterpretation of what my feelings are. My fears on this > > concern that form of political correctness that prevents dialogue > > through an almost totalitarian insistence on 'manners'. I am, in > > fact, very interested in how a range of imagery you hint at affects > > you, others and myself. What I would hope we could get at and to is > > the shared difference. It seems pretty clear we could often not force > > a paper-width between us on what is happening politically in the > > world. The razor disappears in philosophy as we discover it lacks the > > clarity its metaphor suggests. My view is that there is something > > deep and worthwhile in surfacing what we already share in tolerating > > each other at all - though 'tolerate' is the wrong word in some of its > > use - certain forms of tolerance are deeply patronising. To make my > > point, I might regard your exploits in the 'backwaters of traditional > > failures' rather as my grandson's obsessions for electric guitar and > > video games, something not for me, but to be put up with in the > > greater cause of love! I don't, and wouldn't, but all kinds of > > possibilities could be hypothesised in either direction. One could > > write science fiction in which varying characters end up on the same > > quest, from ostensibly different perspectives. Our different ways > > might well reveal themselves as springing from the same 'origins', > > only seen as we recognise we have been sharing the same light. > > > It is easy enough to write of the 'godswanker'. Dawkins cops for a > > lot of cheap jokes about being 'a fundamentalist atheist' or 'a Jehova > > who missed the witnessing'. Somewhere on a Trobriand Island, a man > > with antipodean accent will be converting cargo cultists worshipping > > 'John Frum' to seventh day adventism. We might sneer that the world > > is full of the cargo cultists of capitalism, though 'sneering' might > > be one of the 'five hindrances'. We can, of course, turn it on > > ourselves and experience what is left after ridicule. Some of the > > most deeply patronising and self-unaware behaviour I have witnessed > > has come from social workers and managers I have taught participative > > techniques to in an attempt to try and get them to let people really > > form their own decisions. The Eastern Europeans often used the > > phrases 'the missionaries of management come East' and 'the > > apparatchecks become the entrepreneurcheks', recognising the very > > religious nature of the preached 'transition economics' we were paid > > to deliver. Rather than preach the wonders of the West I have always > > tried to describe the multiple and failed models in use. I 'accuse' > > you of none of this Bill, other than some telling of it as is. > > > We had 'satanic abuse' farces on both sides of our pond. Typically, > > 'experts' from 'abroad' were brought in and swooned authorities who > > should have known better. There is always this worry in me about > > 'religion' - a term in use for me that includes capitalism, > > management theories and any variety of robed figures (including lab > > coats). I hope I include myself. I certainly recognise the > > sermonic! There are questions as to whether even very good arguments > > from Alan Wallace amount to as much as an episode of 'The Champions'. > > The issues of what we might share more deeply do not lie in books of > > manuals, yet also seem not to lie in a simple acquiescence to peace. > > There are questions on what we can teach without using sales tricks - > > many are evident in this piece from Alan. The question is about what > > we can trust. > > > On 22 Nov, 05:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I share your idealism Neil… even when it came to Occham….until I > > > noticed that when applied to itself, the razor disappears. > > > > For me, the notion of ‘personal development’ converts to the process > > > of the active hunger for and pursuit of truth with the function of > > > transcendence producing a unified, larger and more clarified result. > > > Then the process begins all over…cyclically. > > > > On Nov 21, 7:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Freud once said something akin to 'methodologists get caught up in > > > > polishing their glasses and never looking through them'. I often > > > > wonder what others do in respect of 'reading' Orn. I am not at all > > > > 'bookish' and yet am often accused of being so. I've said before that > > > > much of this kind of material is available in philosophy generally. > > > > There is too much for one lifetime even in that opus unless we are > > > > trying for 'person development' (or whatever other term). One might > > > > say that the nominalism of Occham was shattering and that some turn in > > > > modern philosophy (or ancient in new use) might be equally so. I > > > > don't really expect much in this sense, but admit the possibilities. > > > > The guess I'm working with is that technology may open us up to less > > > > nastiness by letting more people, perhaps the vast majority, be > > > > together with what they find. > > > > > On 22 Nov, 02:17, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > For the record, I do not “follow Wallace” although, as a true > > > > > scientist, I have experimented when it comes to mind with him and > > > > > others. In addition, he is a wonderful language instructor even though > > > > > my brain isn’t so inclined. I retain little to no Tibetan from the > > > > > 80s. > > > > > > And, Neil, in one sense I agree with you about the traditional > > > > > background and apparent complexity. Yet, as Alan presents the analogy > > > > > of graduate coursework, it just takes that amount of homework. Of > > > > > course, Buddhism itself has forecast the moment in the future of its > > > > > entire demise. > > > > > > I still remember an inquiry from a fellow member of an Inner Light > > > > > Conference ask HHDL about a shorter method and watching > > ... > > read more » -- 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=.
