I thought as much. Grace. Finesse. And incredible twirls...
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:58 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > That is exactly what I do every morning. How did it get on youtube? Where > are the hidden cameras? > Mark > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCrI4Za-f8&feature=related >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:08 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> No, no answers, just ideas. I use you guys to help me out. Your posts >> are >>> like gold. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems like you have all the answers already. Okay. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:42 AM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>> >>>>> You will find me full of surprises, I have to walk on a razor's edge >>>>> sometimes. You have noted that physics (Wallace) is providing some >>>> support >>>>> for Eastern thought through analogies in physics. Physics is an >>>> excellent >>>>> tool because of its high standing in our current society. It is a >> matter >>>> of >>>>> convincing, and all descriptions are analogies which subscribe to >> common >>>>> sense. You are correct in the assumptions of truth being held by many >>>>> scientific realists. There are many philosophers that point out its >>>>> shortcomings. But, if the intention is to return back to a more >>>> subjective >>>>> appreciation, any tool will do. I am not waiting, I am just watching. >> I >>>>> have not control over any crowd behavior, I don't think you do either. >>>> But >>>>> what do I know, you may be stirring your cauldron right now (smiley >>>> face). >>>>> >>>>> I believe we experience DQ through every moment of each day. The >>>> reflective >>>>> consciousness as discussed in Vedic thought is something that I take to >>>> mean >>>>> that mirror of the world that is created in a highly structured way by >>>> our >>>>> brains in order to interact in as simple a way as needed. Reflection >> may >>>> be >>>>> considered one step removed (however it can also be classified as DQ >>>> since >>>>> it happens in real time, in the present), buy how often are we >>>> reflecting? >>>>> Out of the thousand of things that we experience every minute, only a >> few >>>>> of those are contemplated. No effort is needed to obtain first hand >> DQ, >>>> all >>>>> it takes is some discipline in mindfulness to recognize it. This is >> the >>>> Zen >>>>> way. We have discussed this before, and indeed it is discussed in ZMM >>>> when >>>>> attention is payed to motorcycle maintenance. If we are expecting >>>> something >>>>> more, then there are always drugs...Once they legalize Mary Jane here >> in >>>> CA >>>>> there may be lots of DQ, right before the car crash. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> 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. 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
