Hi Marsha,
I'm reading a book called "Why Beauty is Truth". It is about the
history of symmetry, a math term. It is written by a British professor
of mathematics, Ian Stewart, and covers a selection of math history related to
symmetry (I borrowed it from the local library). I'm only about
half way through,
and it gets kind of technical so I'm struggling a bit. From what I've learned
symmetry is used a lot in math and now physics to explain reality
(truth?).
Maybe I'll learn what truth (or, by symmetry, beauty) is.
Willblake2
On Apr 12, 2009, at 11:36:18 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
Greetings Will,
Somewhere I stumbled across this Buddhist definition of truth: Truth
is what you find when something is discovered to be false. Don't you
just love it! If I were not so undisciplined, I would want to be a
Buddhist. That is a definition of truth I can embrace. - There
have been a steady flow of migrating birds stopping in the lake in
front of my cottage. They are very pretty,,, and the daffodils too.
If you say Huxley realized that ultimate reality was experience, I'd
say he was as wise as Lila, but from the discussion on the InOurTimes
program, he seemed quite a snob. Have you ever watched the movie,
'The Witches of Eastwick'? The Jack Nicholson character has some
interesting things to say on that kind of snobbery. Wonderful movie
if you like to laugh. Van Horn's comments on marriage are
insightful. I giggle just thinking of them.
Krishnamurti's palace? That doesn't sound good if you're looking at
it from the outside. I love libraries, though, and esoteric
knowledge was why I got a degree in Library Science. I once worked
at the Conservation Studio in the Sterling Library at Yale, and had
in my hands an early edition of the Malleus Maleficarum. The Malleus
Maleficarum was supposed to be the truth based on Reason. But thank
goodness truth is really what you find when something is discovered
to be false...
Play well, Willblake2.
Marsha
At 01:11 AM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>So many opportunities of fun discussion with your posts, so little time.....
>
>I am not a sociologist or psychologist, but I believe there are leaders and
>followers. I'm not quite sure how flocks of migrating birds work,
>but it is my understanding that they take turns leading. The leader
>of a herd of deer however will fight to the death for that position. I
>think humans are somewhere in between. I'm not sure where the
>intellectuals are separate or leading. Smart scientists will make
>discoveries that will affect the masses, philosophers or religious gurus
>do the same, but everything always changes. Do the masses create
>the leaders (do they symbolize group thought?), or do the leaders
>draw the masses? I believe in the former.
>Those birds are pretty though.
>
>My understanding of Huxley is that he was searching for an ultimate
>meaning. Such a meaning only becomes ultimate if you truly believe
>it is. He seems to have come to an understanding of personal experience
>being that ultimate reality.
>
>What is Truth? Obviously that which is not Falsehood. Is anything False?
>Some people consider that which is man-made to be false (like false teeth).
>However, what is man-made is also natural, as natural as the gorge that
>a river makes on its way to the sea. Is there an Ultimate
>Truth? Is there an
>Ultimate Falsehood? Is the sound of one hand clapping true? Why is a
>mouse when it spins? Is that true? Is the Divine Ground, or Godhead true?
>
>I would say that either everything is true, or everything is false. When I
>contemplate the daffodil (or the lotus), it is easy to feel that way. My
>opinions are of no consequence to the flower.
>
>Oh, I haven't been to Krishnamurti's palace either, but I have been to the
>local Theosophy site in Ojai. Lots of neat old esoteric books in
the library.
>
>Cheers,
>Willblake2
>
>
>
>
>On Apr 11, 2009, at 1:12:16 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Will,
>
>Do you think there is a primary societal division between the
>intellectuals and the masses?
>
>By the way, what the heck is the 'truth'? The way I interpret Lila
>in Chapter 14, individuals only hold patterns they consider truth, no
>one holds a pattern they consider false. What then is truth? If a
>pattern is repeated 10,000 times as opposed to 9 times is it more
>true? Is truth relationship? Does truth flash in and out of
>existence like some subatomic particle? Do the intellectuals hold
>the truth? Do the masses hold the truth?
>
>What was Huxley's mind like?
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>At 01:33 AM 4/11/2009, you wrote:
> >Hi KO,
> >
> >It's always easy to find controversy in the spiritual teachers. They are
> >obviously fringe, and dealt with in that way. However, the teachings
> >can always be separated from the person. Perhaps they are able to
> >grasp concepts of group consciousness, and act just as a medium. This
> >is not to say that deceit does not exist in this sector. I have
> "Krishnamurti
> >to Himself - His last Journal", which he recorded at Pine
> >Cottage. I sometimes read
> >it randomly to give me something to think about as I fall asleep.
> >
> >The only book I don't like of Huxley's is the Doors of Perception.
> I think he
> >made a little bit too much of his trips. But with a mind like his,
> >I guess that is
> >what happens.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Willblake2
> >
> >
> >On Apr 10, 2009, at 7:03:49 AM, "kieffer odigaunt"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hi Marsha and Will,
> >
> >Krishnamurti's ideas have always appealed to me because of his
lack of dogma
> >and totally pragmatic approach. As part of his call for the individual to
> >take responsibility ('You are the World') he many times talked about the
> >possibility that the very structure of the brain can change. I
am reading a
> >book lately:- The Brain that Changes Itself - about recent advances in
> >Neuro-plasticity; it seems Krishnamurti was right and it adds gives more
> >credibility to the transformational 'Process' as he called it that he
> >underwent at Ojai. Perhaps he had found a way to apprehend dynamic quality
> >more clearly than the rest of us.
> >
> >His affair with the wife of his editorial manager 'Lives in the
Shadow With
> >J Krishnamurti' written by her daughter, although very controversial in no
> >way detracts from the importance of what Krishnamurti advised.
> >
> >Aldous Huxley (along with John Dewey) was another famous pupil of
> >F.M.Alexander and even based one of the characters of his novel
'Eyeless in
> >Gaza' on Alexander. Huxley died from cancer of the tongue whilst under the
> >effects of LSD.
> >
> >-KO
> >
> >2009/4/10 MarshaV <[email protected]>
> >
> > >
> > > Greetings Will,
> > >
> > > I've been to Ojai many times, and can close my eyes and
picture the ride
> > > there. Beautiful! You don't own the yard with the mower as
lawn ornament,
> > > do you?
> > >
> > > The topic of Krishnamurit's life has come up before. I read a
biography a
> > > very long time ago. Someone in this forum mentioned he was
> having an affair
> > > with his brother's wife. I do not care to make any judgements on his
> > > character. I saw him speak in an auditorium at Madison Square
> Garden.. When
> > > he finished speaking he just got up and left the stage. It was very
> > > strange. I read 'Think On These Things' many, many years ago,
> It might have
> > > been my first reading of a metaphysical type, and have been curious to
> > > reread it. Also I want to read the dialogues between he and
> David Bohm as a
> > > way to acquaint myself with David Bohm.
> > >
> > > After listening to the In Our Times, 'Brave New World', and hearing the
> > > discussion concerning Aldus Huxley, I'd have to say he was just another
> > > brujo. It was a depressing IOT program.
> > >
> > >
> > > Marsha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 12:22 AM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Marsha,
> > >>
> > >> If you want to get a historical perspective on Krishnamurti,
and how he
> > >> was brought up through the religion of theosophy, read "Madam
> > >> Blavatsky's Baboon". It is an enjoyable read although somewhat
> > >> biased. Oh, and Aldus Huxley hung out a little with
> Krishnamurti, here in
> > >> Ojai, near where I live.
> > >>
> > >> Willblake2
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Apr 8, 2009, at 3:34:46 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060916095
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Krishnamurti:
> > >>
> > >> Would you like to discuss with you the problem of freedom. It
> > >> is a very complex problem, needing deep study and understanding. We
> > >> hear much talk about freedom, religious freedom, and the freedom to
> > >> do what one would like to do. Volumes have been written on all this
> > >> by scholars. But I think we can approach it very simply and directly,
> > >> and perhaps that will bring us to the real solution.
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if you have ever stopped to observe the marvellous
> > >> glow in the west as the sun sets, with the shy young moon just over
> > >> the trees? Often at that hour the river is very calm, and then
> > >> everything is reflected on its surface: the bridge, the train that
> > >> goes over it, the tender moon, and presently, as it grows dark, the
> > >> stars. It is all very beautiful. And to observe, to watch, to give
> > >> your whole attention to something beautiful, your mind must be free
> > >> of preoccupations, must it not? It must not be occupied with
> > >> problems, with worries, with speculations. It is only when the mind
> > >> is very quiet that you can really observe, for then the mind is
> > >> sensitive to extraordinary beauty; and perhaps here is a clue to our
> > >> problem of freedom.
> > >>
> > >> Now, what does it mean to be free? Is freedom a matter of doing
> > >> what happens to suit you, going where you like, thinking what you
> > >> will? This you do anyhow. Merely to have independence, does that mean
> > >> freedom? Many people in the world are independent, but very few are
> > >> free. Freedom implies great intelligence, does it not? To be free is
> > >> to be intelligent, but intelligence does not come into being by just
> > >> wishing to be free; it comes into being only when you begin to
> > >> understand your whole environment, the social, religious, parental
> > >> and traditional influences that are continually closing in on you..
> > >> But to understand the various influences - the influence of your
> > >> parents, of your government, of society, of the culture to which you
> > >> belong, of your beliefs, your gods and superstitions, of the
> > >> tradition to which you conform unthinkingly - to understand all these
> > >> and become free from them requires deep insight; but you generally
> > >> give in to them because inwardly you are frightened. You are afraid
> > >> of not having a good position in life; you are afraid of what your
> > >> priest will say; you are afraid of not following tradition, of not
> > >> doing the right thing. But freedom is really a state of mind in which
> > >> there is no fear or compulsion, no urge to be secure.
> > >>
> > >> Don't most of us want to be safe? Don't we want to be told what
> > >> marvellous people we are, how lovely we look, or what extraordinary
> > >> intelligence we have? Otherwise we would not put letters after our
> > >> names. All that kind of thing gives us self-assurance, a sense of
> > >> importance. We all want to be famous people - and the moment we want
> > >> to be something, we are no longer free.
> > >>
> > >> Please see this, for it is the real clue to the understanding
> > >> of the problem of freedom. Whether in this world of politicians,
> > >> power, position and authority, or in the so-called spiritual world
> > >> where you aspire to be virtuous, noble, saintly, the moment you want
> > >> to be somebody you are no longer free. But the man or the woman who
> > >> sees the absurdity of all these things and whose heart is therefore
> > >> innocent, and therefore not moved by the desire to be somebody - such
> > >> a person is free. If you understand the simplicity of it you will
> > >> also see its extraordinary beauty and depth.
> > >>
> > >> After all, examinations are for that purpose: to give you a
> > >> position, to make you somebody. Titles, position and knowledge
> > >> encourage you to be something. Have you not noticed that your parents
> > >> and teachers tell you that you must amount to something in life, that
> > >> you must be successful like your uncle or your grandfather? Or you
> > >> try to imitate the example of some hero, to be like the Masters, the
> > >> saints; so you are never free. Whether you follow the example of a
> > >> Master, a saint, a teacher, a relative, or stick to a particular
> > >> tradition, it all implies a demand on your part to be something; and
> > >> it is only when you really understand this fact that there
is freedom..
> > >>
> > >> The function of education, then, is to help you from childhood
> > >> not to imitate anybody, but to be yourself all the time. And this is
> > >> a most difficult thing to do: whether you are ugly or beautiful,
> > >> whether you are envious or jealous, always to be what you are, but
> > >> understand it. To be yourself is very difficult, because you think
> > >> that what you are is ignoble, and that if you could only change what
> > >> you are into something noble it would be marvellous; but that never
> > >> happens. Whereas, if you look at what you actually are and understand
> > >> it, then in that very understanding there is a transformation. So
> > >> freedom lies, not in trying to become something different, nor in
> > >> doing whatever you happen to feel like doing, nor in following the
> > >> authority of tradition, of your parents, of your guru, but in
> > >> understanding what you are from moment to moment.
> > >>
> > >> You see, you are not educated for this; your education
> > >> encourages you to become something or other - but that is not the
> > >> understanding of yourself. Your `self' is a very complex thing; it is
> > >> not merely the entity that goes to school, that quarrels, that plays
> > >> games, that is afraid, but it is also something hidden, not obvious..
> > >> It is made up, not only of all the thoughts that you think, but also
> > >> of all the things that have been put into your mind by other people,
> > >> by books, by the newspapers, by your leaders; and it is possible to
> > >> understand all that only when you don't want to be somebody, when you
> > >> don't imitate, when you don't follow - which means, really, when you
> > >> are in revolt against the whole tradition of trying to become
> > >> something. That is the only true revolution, leading to extraordinary
> > >> freedom. To cultivate this freedom is the real function of education.
> > >>
> > >> Your parents, your teachers and your own desires want you to be
> > >> identified with something or other in order to be happy, secure. But
> > >> to be intelligent, must you not break through all the influences that
> > >> enslave and crush you?
> > >>
> > >> The hope of a new world is in those of you who begin to see
> > >> what is false and revolt against it, not just verbally but actually..
> > >> And that is why you should seek the right kind of education; for it
> > >> is only when you grow in freedom that you can create a new world not
> > >> based on tradition or shaped according to the idiosyncrasy of some
> > >> philosopher or idealist. But there can be no freedom as long as you
> > >> are merely trying to become somebody, or imitate a noble example.
> > >> (TOTT, pp.12-15)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ..
> > >> _____________
> > >>
..
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..........
..
..
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
