dmb says: Well, at least you're admitting that SOM is more than just a straw man.
[Krimel] Quite the contrary as I said before: "It becomes a strawman when it is simply used in an unsophisticated attempt to dismiss that which makes you uncomfortable." In fact so much of this post is just crying SOM, I'm not going to waste time on it. In fact, of all the points I raised in this ridiculously long post, "SOM" is the only argument you can think of, you even have the gall to count it down. It's like in Dave's world SOM = IDK. And your answers read like: IDK one time! IDK two times! IDK three times! IDK all the damn time! Rah, Rah, Rah! And what are you throwing away as you cling to your strawman, hoping not to drown? Oh yeah I mentioned that before... "Stuff like: hearing and seeing being different modalities, systems theory as a good way of analyzing process, information theory as a road to understanding the concept of meaning, chaos theory as a way of seeing how static patterns emerge from the dynamic flux of chance, probability theory as an explanation of everything from evolution to decision making, causality as probability and probability as an actual biological 'sense'." Oh yeah and the exponential expansion of human consciousness brought on by technology. [dmb] The idea that I would be turning James into an idealist only makes sense from within SOM itself. Since I'm saying external, objective reality is just a concept, just a product of reflection, you figure, I must be advocating a reality composed entirely of the other half, of subjectivity. From within the assumptions of SOM, that would look like idealism, if not solipsism. Ah, but of course that's not what I'm saying at all because the radical empiricist has already rejected SOM and so the subjective self is just a product of reflection too, just a concept derived from experience every bit as much as the objective side. [Krimel] And this only looks like a reasoned argument from inside your own rectum. By the way, how do you get light in there? Is that the Dharmakaya light? I can only imagine that from that position and in that light what you see is utter perfection. You are indeed in a state of oneness, in a state of unity with your own perfect asshole. Look Dave, you can hide up your own ass. You can twist and distort and weave 'radical empiricism' into your own personal security blanket but in the end all those monstrous insights of the 20th century are still under the bed laughing at you. What is especially laughable is that in the post after this one you follow up with a quotefest. As I have mentioned a couple of times before, a quotefest is about all that is left to a self styled Apologist. Your roll is to establish and preserve dogma. If only you were any good at it... dmb says: I wouldn't expect too much mysticism from an academic theologian. That doesn't mean a case can't be made. Lots of people have and when the time is ripe, I'll make it to you. [Krimel] So I need to have my mind prepared in order to receive Gnosis from the Master. Oh goodie, I can hardly wait for the laying on of hands. Jesus, Dave I was originally just kidding about the Cult business but you seem to be taking it for real. Krimel replied earlier with quote and a comment: I guess if you think "...new-born babes, or men in semi-coma from sleep, drugs, illnesses or blows..." have the inside track to Nirvana but I don't think that is what James is about. dmb says: James is only pointing out that "experience pure in the literal sense" is an exceptional state of mind. This qualification goes along quite nicely with his idea that percepts and concepts are coordinate or, in the MOQ's terms, that direct everyday experience involves the constant interplay between static quality and dynamic quality. [Krimel] Percepts and concepts are only coordinate to the extent that concepts are in line with perception. If they aren't we throw them away. That's how memes evolve into the intellectual level. [dmb] This also goes along quite nicely with the idea that our thoughts shape what we see as much as our sight shapes what we think. The difference between babies and mystics is that babies don't have yet have any static patterns to abandoned but the idea is essentially about recapturing that original undivided state. [Krimel] Why? Are we to start pissing our pants and spitting our food all over the place. I mean I can see the advantage of drinking milk from the tap but is there more? [dmb] But the mystic's goal is NOT to return to an undeveloped state. Mystics go beyond their static patterns of thought while babies have yet to acquire them. The mystic transcends his ego-identity while the baby doesn't yet have any such thing. [Krimel] But if your advanced mystic still winds up in the same clueless spot, whatever difference you think there is seems a bit specious. [dmb] And extreme situations can bring about the mystical experience spontaneously, that is the say without the benefit of meditation or the other techniques that have been developed. [Krimel] Oh, this is the part where we celebrate head trauma, stroke, schizophrenia and epilepsy... Yawn... [dmb] The American Indian vision quest, for example, was a relatively dangerous and unreliable way to precipitate such an experience. Later, because it was safer and more reliable, they adopted the use of peyote. [Krimel] Get real, Dave. Vision quests and peyote are practices of different tribes. Native Americans are not a monolithic group. There was no progress in mystical technology as you describe it. To the extent that some tribes employed both it was not as though one replaced the other. Nor was peyote the only power plant used by indigenous peoples. [dmb] The ancient mystery religions where soaked in hallucinogens, for example. Some of today's most admired artists suffered childhood illnesses severe enough to have nearly killed them and that experience had a lot to do with the development of their creative intuition. Francis Ford Coppola is one such case. [Krimel] Drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes enhances creativity and performance as well. So? Creative inspiration can arise from lots of sources or apparently from no where at all. It is true that many or our most creative people have suffered from bi-polar disorder. But doesn't that really make the case that altering the chemistry and function of the brain is all that is going on? [dmb] And James himself was quite impressed with the effects of nitrous oxide in his own experience. It wasn't his golden ticket to the Truth, but it made him realize that other forms of consciousness were available to us. [Krimel] Right, like so many of us, James had to get high to make himself believe, even briefly, in bullshit. You seem to have achieved a state wherein bullshit comes naturally to you. [dmb] To be enlightened is to fully realize this lack of division. To be an infant is to live in this lack of division without "realizing" a damn thing. Big difference. [Krimel] The larger point really is that this "mystic revelation" is nothing more than a concept. Realization is nothing more than conceptualization. The point you are white washing with your labels is that all experience becomes conceptual. We aren't arguing about that. We are always talking about this set of concepts versus that set of concepts. You are arguing that mysticism, rationalism, idealism, having your head up your ass is a great set of concepts. I am saying its bunk. dmb says: We all begin as infants and so we all begin in a world of pure experience so actually it is impossible to avoid it. The trick is to realize it in your own experience even as an adult. The qualification that says normal consciousness is never literally "pure", never literally and completely devoid of static patterns, does not mean that this categories is extinguished or eliminated. It simply has to qualified by the effects of the developmental process, in which we lose sight of it even though we're operating on its basis all the time. Ordinary words like feeling, intuition, hunch, and yes even sensation refer to the persistence of this basic mode of consciousness even in adults. [Krimel] Look I think watching babies interact with their world is utterly fascinating. I went through a period of talking about research in developmental psychology and got accused of being single minded by Marsha and more blanket SOM crap from you. Jesus said we should be "born again" to enter the kingdom of heaven. Buddha says we should cultivate the beginners mind. I'm a fan of this. But so what? As creatures we are equipped by the history of our species to construct concepts. This is how we communicate with one another. It is how we make the world around us more hospitable to ourselves and our posterity. The intellectual level IS the concepts that have survived across the span of written history. They survive to the extent that they are coordinate with our perceptions. We drink from the well of our collective human heritage in accordance with how well those concepts coincide with current perception. Concepts become BAD when they are mistaken for percepts. They are evil to the extent that they are not flexible. Concepts, being rooted in perception, have an organic Quality. They grow and live. When they stop doing that, when they lose that organic quality, they become fixed, calcified and static. In short they become dogma, which is all you are actively pursuing. Tell you what, why don't you find some Pirsig quotes to dispute this with... dmb says: Right, there is nothing wrong with asking about the lower conditions that make the higher conditions possible. Unfortunately, asking those questions does not amount to reductionism and so your reply does not even address the actual charge. Obviously, you've failed to answer the charge again because you don't understand it. This incomprehension is quite baffling to me because the explanations seem so obvious to me. [Krimel] Once again you are creating a strawman. This label disguises all of the different kinds of reduction and the subtle arguments about it with your childish, "...oooo it's yuckie." You reduce a complex argument to greedy reduction and get all smug and puffed up about it. I am beginning to see how this return to childhood works for you. dmb says: Oh, for Christ's sake! Do you think I'm objecting to the word "state"? You can't really be that stupid, can you? Reductionism is when you reduce complex things like consciousness to the biological processes. The objection, your obliviousness, is EQUATING the brain's functional state with the experience had by the meditators. [Krimel] One last time, if you think you can understand consciousness in any meaningful way without dealing with the biological processes that give rise to it, you are a fool. [dmb] May I remind you of a simple fact, the people who observed and recorded the brain states of the meditators had a completely different experience than the meditators did. In effect, they were observers of the experience from outside the experience itself. They were looking at physical objects, namely the scientific instruments and the brains they were hooked up to. [Krimel] Let me remind you of a simple fact. The research you were talking about was done at the request of the Dalia Lama. The subjects were his monks. His response to the research was favorable. All you are showing with your lame analysis is that you are a clueless romantic. dmb: Are you saying that compassion IS a brain state now? Are you giving us a materialistic reduction of love now? [Krimel] No, a state refers to a larger pattern of perception and response. Sleep for example is a state; as are intoxication and wakefulness. Compassion is more like a emotion. It ascribes Value. In addition to activation of the areas of the brain pointed to in the experiments you mention, compassion is often governed by the hormone oxitocin. The vague nerve, which control much of the parasympathetic nervous system (the part that calms us down), is rich in oxitocin receptors. Oxitocin is high in everyone in a birthing room. It serves to bond Moms and Dads and babies. If you give people a dose of it, they will feel all cozy about other people. You can in effect create compassion via injection. [dmb] By the way, trying to untangle your nonsense is not fun. It's just a chore. It's a drag. I'd welcome a real challenge but this ain't it. Even with major help from that theologian, you're not making any sense. [Krimel] At last we come to some agreement. I omitted most of this crap since it was just a display of your utter inability to deal with the issues. I can see why you don't think it is a challenge to slap your stupid SOM/reduction label on things. But it really does deal with the issues either. As for my use of a "theologian" I did so because he was addressing James' radical empiricism explicitly in the chapter I cited. By the way the only difference I can see between a theologian and philosopher is that more than 4 or 5 people might actually give a shit what a theologian has to say. [dmb] Over and out,dmb [Krimel] No problem! If you keep your head stuck up your philosophical ass, you will continue to get all the attention you deserve. 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/
