p.s. You wrote "The Tao is unchangeable in the end, swinging back and forth." I thought that the "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao."
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:49 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Mark, > > You surprise me. It sounds like you're going to wait for the Great White > Scientific Hope, wearing a white hat, to ride up on his white horse, Physics, > to save the day? As best I can figure out, most physicists are still > scientific > realists and ignore the quantum enigmas. It's interesting because I always > thought the drive of the MoQ was to experience first-hand DQ, "pure > experience" or the Undifferentiated Continuum, not just to talk about it. > > > Marsha > > > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:33 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> I'll get to that book when I find it in the library, sounds interesting. If >> one were to divide metaphysics into the contemplation of the subjective and >> contemplation of the objective, I would state that the pendulum has swung >> very far into the objective. The recent rise of esoteric religions such a >> theosophy and new age dreams are adding weight to bring the pendulum back >> down the other way. It is indeed dark ages for subjective contemplation, >> and in that sense, man is at a very low point at this period in time. >> Sciences such as physics are breaking through however and it is just a >> matter of time. The Tao is unchangeable in the end, swinging back and >> forth. >> >> Mark >> >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Why wait for some scientific future to come true when there is an >>> immediate need. There is this twenty-five hundred-year-old >>> tradition that has been working on just such a science of mind. >>> From what little I understand they use both rationality and special >>> introspective techniques. To remind you: >>> >>> >>> "Upon first learning of mental states described in traditions outside of >>> one's, there is a natural tendency to seek counterparts in one's own >>> background or in the knowledge of one's native culture. For many people it >>> si difficult to acknowledge the possibility that the attainment of >>> quiescence may have no counterpart in Western civilization, that the >>> contemplative science of ancient India made advances that the West has not >>> duplicated. Especially over the past five hundred years, the West has made >>> tremendous advances in developing physical instruments to aid us in >>> exploring the world. Such research instruments have enabled us to probe >>> deeply into the nature of physical phenomena, but they offer no direct >>> access to mental events. The mind is the only instrument capable of >>> examining all types of natural events --- including both the physical and >>> mental. But in terms of refining human awareness in the development of >>> stability and clarity as described above, Western civllization has made no >>> progress since the Scientific Revolution. In this field of contemplative >>> science ours is a backward, underdeveloped culture. If we wish to explore >>> these Buddhist theories and practices further, we are well advised to >>> proceed not with blink faith, but with our full powers of critical >>> intelligence. In so doing we follow the advice that the Buddha gave to his >>> monks when he counseled: >>> >>> O monks, sages accept my words after examining them well-- >>> like gold after it has been melted, cut and rubbed--but not out >>> of devotion [for me]. >>> >>> (Wallace, B. Alan, 'Choosing Reality, : A Buddhist View of Physics and the >>> Mind',2003,pp.198-199) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> There is some discussion on the use of the subject-object analogy in MOQ >>>> discuss, and the attributes of Value to such an analogy. This bears >>> inquiry >>>> as it could also be interpreted that such an analogy is at the heart of >>> many >>>> religions. This SO divide brings out the search for the true subjective. >>>> Vedic philosophy can be interpreted to have assigned such subjective the >>>> “I”. That is the “I” that is witnessing what I appear to be. In such >>>> philosophy, that subject is compared to a vibration or a hum. Buddhist >>>> thought which arose from such Eastern tradition, used intelligent thought >>> to >>>> describe the subjective as not inherently existent, and described such a >>>> concept with a co-dependent arising metaphor. More recently, Christian >>>> metaphors were interpreted by Kierkegaard, who proposed that the ultimate >>>> union of the subjective and objective could be achieved through extreme >>>> belief and devotion, requiring a leap. Much existentialist >>> interpretation >>>> followed his lead, including Heidegger’s “Being”. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In terms as what is referred to as Western philosophy, it is the opinion >>> of >>>> this author that the subject-object analogy was converted to an >>>> object-object description. That is the comparison of two objects. Plato >>>> provided such description by objectifying the subjective. More recently, >>>> Descartes further congealed the objectification of subjectivity by >>> defining >>>> it as thought. The statement “I think, therefore I am” suggests that >>>> thinking is the underlying presence of self. Previously, in the Eastern >>>> thought described above, thinking was something that the self experienced >>> as >>>> an object. The description of the objectified sense of thought as the >>>> subjective sense of "I" has more recently led to notions by scientific >>>> materialism that the self can be explained physically through appropriate >>>> investigation into the brain itself. Such studies are ongoing, but >>>> difficult. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Western considerations of the subject-object confused the subject with >>> the >>>> object. The metaphorical root of this transition could arise from the >>> use >>>> of language. As a matter of logistics, language must express the subject >>>> object idea as object-object to be useful. Subject-object Metaphysics >>>> cannot be discussed without the objectifying of the subjective side. >>>> Indeed, the conversion of thought into words is a process of >>>> objectification. Is this notion therefore something that creates a >>>> roadblock and cannot be truly discussed due to the structure of language, >>>> and something that we have no control over? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps, but consider the following thought experiment (science fiction >>> as a >>>> metaphor). At some time in the future, the principle of telepathy will >>> have >>>> been understood and harnessed. There would be direct communication >>> between >>>> brains through some kind of brain-wave harnessing. Would such >>> communication >>>> be in the form of words? The answer is no. There would be no need for >>>> words since entire awareness could be communicated. Words would be >>> bypassed >>>> so that entire appreciations could be conveyed such as the sense one gets >>>> when looking at a painting. This would mean that thoughts as words would >>>> not be necessary, and words would only be used temporarily over long >>>> distances if there were no other means of communication. Such words >>> would >>>> be considered primitive communication, like the telegraph is now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The awareness of how words form our subject-object metaphysics is, in the >>>> opinion of this author, a fruitful interpretation which is provided as >>>> analogy. Through the development of such metaphors it is possible to >>>> appreciate (or create) some more meaningful underlying principles (or >>>> metaphors). >>>> >>>> >>>> The opinions expressed in this post are the author's and do not >>> necessarily >>>> represent positions of the MOQ. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> 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/md/archives.html >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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/md/archives.html >>> >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
