Hi Marsha, I don't know what is officially Zen, the lines are very blurry. Often I do find things in Zen which concur with my awareness, often not. I think it is important to break out of the societal structure imparted by language. We can only do so outside of language. This is a transition from static quality to dynamic quality using the MoQ vernacular. Appropriate "thinking" (or "Right (noble) thinking" as Buddha would say) is one such method.
As a scientist, I am highly skeptical. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to do my job. I do not know much about Nagarjuna, but am learning about what he says from you. Cheers, Marki On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > My explanation works for me. If your explanation works for you, > then that is good for you. If my understanding changes, I'll let you > know. I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're speaking from > a Zen tradition; I know nothing about the Zen tradition. Being more > a skeptic, Nagarjuna appeals to me. > > > Marsha > > > > On May 12, 2011, at 10:38 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> OK. I would define "thinking" as the sum total of all the activity >> that goes into such conventional naming. I am not sure what else to >> call the rest of it. Awareness, in my opinion, is separate from >> "thinking", and is the basis for individual presence. I see your >> narration as simply the final product as it becomes ready for sharing >> with another. What you present seems to be the SOM portion of >> thinking. But, this is just a disagreement in terminology, and I am >> fine with that. In my opinion, the intellectual level is more >> involved than simply SOM. SOM is simply a tool like a paintbrush is >> for painting. In the same way, I would term art as the entire process >> of creation of such, not just the final painting. But, perhaps to >> simplify our discussion, we can call art the SOM part, and the >> remainder (which is most of it) we can term something else. How about >> dynamic art? Using this analogy, we can differentiate between >> "thinking" and "dynamic thinking". We could also speak of literature, >> and dynamic literature, one is the words, and the other includes >> concepts and such. Does this work for you? >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> I define 'thinking' as the conventional naming and narration mentally >>> constructed using words. Awareness, on the other hand, can be of all >>> types of non-verbal experiences. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 11:56 PM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> I think if you pay attention you will notice that we do not think in >>>> words. The only time we do is when we are formulating a communication >>>> or thinking within the social level. Thinking is much deeper than >>>> that, and words are just the tip of the iceberg (as it were). Most of >>>> our thinking goes unnoticed by that focussed part. You may be speaking >>>> of is the difference between psychological "attention" and >>>> consciousness. This is poorly informed Western psychology that >>>> presents such a dichotomy. >>>> >>>> Have you ever heard of "thinking without thinking"? This is popular >>>> terminology within Zen for the process of mindfulness, and it is just >>>> that. Strange I know for those who live in a world of words. >>>> Attention, in its Western form, has been relegated to a function >>>> required for survival (you know, all those Darwin worshipers). >>>> Certainly, a focal point of attention helps us perform tasks, but what >>>> do you think the rest of the brain is doing during this time, standing >>>> idly by? That just would not make sense. Ever have a thought >>>> suddenly appear in focus out of nowhere. Don't you think that there >>>> was something going on to produce that thought? >>>> >>>> It does not take much of the brain to be in attention, and the rest of >>>> the brain is not asleep during this time. Because of Western >>>> psychology, many believe that they are their focussed thoughts. This >>>> is really a shame since it is so untrue. What a waste that would be >>>> if the sum total of ourselves where just what we were focussing on at >>>> the time. This occupies about 1% of our total thinking. If you let >>>> your thoughts go free, do not concentrate on them, but just observe >>>> them as something that is happening to you, you will find that there >>>> is much more going on in there. Certainly do not take my word for it, >>>> but don't waste your life surrounded by static quality. >>>> >>>> Good luck, >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>> >>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 3:59 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> What you say below is incorrect. You are speaking of the Social >>>>>> Level. We think outside of language and only use it for >>>>>> communication. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I am speaking about thinking, not consciousness. I am sure human >>>>> beings are conscious of many experiences outside of language: smell, >>>>> taste, hearing, touch and sight to name the most obvious. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Many things are true to the individual; things are >>>>>> only agreed on at the Social level. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I understand thinking to go on at both the Social and Intellectual >>>>> Levels. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:51 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Arlo, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Been thinking that we can think and characterize reality only subject >>>>>>> to language, which is conventional (sq) and says nothing ultimately >>>>>>> true. Do you accept your last statement (Assimilating language...) as >>>>>>> true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 10, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Marsha] >>>>>>>> Is this about an autonomous individual? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Arlo] >>>>>>>> No. In this paragraph the author is stating the extremes, or poles, of >>>>>>>> "structure" (determinism?) and "agency" (free will?). There have been >>>>>>>> other terms for these, but within structuration theories (such as >>>>>>>> Giddens, Archer, Parker and Bourdieu), these are recast not as >>>>>>>> antagonist forces, but mutually enabling and mutually supportive. >>>>>>>> Agency is always enacted within structure, and structure is always >>>>>>>> influenced by agency. Greater structure brings greater agency, >>>>>>>> simplistically, rather than being inversely related. The incredibly >>>>>>>> rapidity of world travel, and the ensuing "freedom" to move around the >>>>>>>> globe, rests on a very complex structure of mechanics, navigation, >>>>>>>> flight theory, schedules, airports, etc etc etc. If you remove the >>>>>>>> structure, the agency of the individual to move around is severely >>>>>>>> diminished. Moreso, Boudieu also considers the same duality regarding >>>>>>>> "words" which Mark seems to suggest is a form of imprisonment. >>>>>>>> Assimilating language provides us with far > g >>> re >>>>> at >>>>>>> er capacity to act than a feral human would have, albeit it at the >>>>>>> same time (like roadways) channeling our thoughts in certain ways. >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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
