Hard to catch you twirling, whirling dervish types...
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:09 PM, 118 wrote: > 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
