Tohat is vey true, but it is a strange feeling talk to a buddist monk,, actual. Not a wana be and get the look of disbelief.. That a person would have no idea of what they experienced in buddist terms. Allan
On 25 jul. 2011, at 20:46, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes hallucinatory and delusional experiences are taken by the > beholder to be spiritual in nature , but it takes a knowledgeable > outsider to understand such experiences to be what they are.It is for > this reason it is better to describe personal experience to others in > the hope to get an impartial view , but sadly the affected person > doesn't accept an impartial view and considers himself to be psychic. > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> LOL. Yeah I am still here, >> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an >> experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and >> books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing >> enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others. >> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on >> their own .. >> Allan >> >> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your >>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :) >>> >>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) >>> >>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one >>> "heretic" here already...alan? :) >>> >>> Thanks for the insights. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per >>>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially >>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect >>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're >>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing >>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to >>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better >>>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as >>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing >>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and >>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed >>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture >>>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like >>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others >>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative >>>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at >>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton >>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard >>>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more >>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with >>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are. >>>> >>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) >>>> >>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to >>>>> get out more :) >>>> >>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i >>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a >>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality; >>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and >>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the >>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite >>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not >>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be >>>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts >>>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which >>>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. >>>> >>>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very >>>>> optimistic, archytas :) >>>> >>>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it >>>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by >>>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with >>>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make >>>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as >>>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as >>>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of >>>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work. >>>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much >>>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in >>>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old >>>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have >>>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes >>>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side >>>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal >>>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that >>>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved >>>>>> that does. >>>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we >>>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we >>>>>> come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology >>>>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve >>>>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know >>>>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured >>>>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell >>>>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is >>>>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history >>>>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but >>>>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither >>>>>> matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the >>>>>> obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into >>>>>> the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case >>>>>> because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a >>>>>> rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds >>>>>> and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not >>>>>> under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each >>>>>> other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'. >>>> >>>>>> Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through >>>>>> asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the >>>>>> holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of >>>>>> "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same >>>>>> way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly >>>>>> becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are >>>>>> thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to >>>>>> argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be >>>>>> demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks >>>>>> work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy >>>>>> there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but >>>>>> rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from >>>>>> pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that >>>>>> doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant >>>>>> speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely >>>>>> stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow >>>>>> governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just >>>>>> come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could >>>>>> put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all. >>>>>> For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who >>>>>> reports the 'secrets' under the bandages. >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. >>>> >>>>>>> By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that >>>>>>> "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and >>>>>>> time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not >>>>>>> autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our >>>>>>> neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the >>>>>>> contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being >>>>>>> isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest >>>>>>> some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic >>>>>>> view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global >>>>>>> "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive >>>>>>> the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You >>>>>>> see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to >>>>>>> the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit >>>>>>> comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? >>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> How?...if so, by direct apprehension. >>>>>>>> Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality >>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the >>>>>>>>> "more" comes from? >>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the >>>>>>>>>> ‘more’ >>>>>>>>>> can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do >>>>>>>>>> recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so >>>>>>>>>> this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can >>>>>>>>>>> "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the >>>>>>>>>>> autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that >>>>>>>>>>> conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more >>>>>>>>>>> (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes >>>>>>>>>>> from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith). >>>>>>>>>>> It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response paradox. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question. >>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of mind’, >>>>>>>>>>>> what, >>>>>>>>>>>> for you, could/would resolve said question? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> read more »- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>
