Twirling is one of my specialties if you haven't already noticed. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 > 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
