Hi Chris, I do understand. Thank you for the explanation. I meant it
in a funny way. Science is part of the universe also.
When I said that I don't get tired, I mean I recover faster than
before. It does not mean I don't need to sleep. Somehow getting tired
and feeling sleepy is not exactly the same to me. I don't know how to
explain it. I would say tired is feeling exhausted, while sleepy is
like another set of nerve took over.
Not sure I make sense. Just how I felt.
:-)
Be Enlightened In This Life - We ALL Can
http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com
http://www.heartchan.org
On 2/5/2011 6:41 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
On Saturday, February 5, 2011, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
<[email protected] <mailto:chan.jmjm%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> Scientists wake up too? Interesting. Thank you Chris. I have
> learned.
I am sure that has happened but that was not my point, which was just
that scientists understand the subjective nature of living, and that
the idea of pure objectivity is not very common in science, at least
any more.
Writing this, I wish also to assure you that you do not need to
compare Chan to science to make it seem good. To my hearing, comparing
what you offer to a false picture of scientific activity is less
persuasive than just putting forth your program on its own merits.
That may be just me.
> BTW, we already have a meditation center setup in Silicon Valley
> last year. We will have our Chan Center setup in Los Angeles this
> spring.
You once wrote that you no longer feel tired ever, but I try to live
so that I am tired at night and ready for sleep. I like the zen I am
being taught, which is to sleep when tired and eat when hungry.
Ordinary.
Cheers,
chris
>
> :-)
> Be Enlightened In This Life - We ALL Can
> http://chanjmjm.blogspot.com
> http://www.heartchan.org
>
>
> On 2/5/2011 9:27 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 5, 2011, Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明
> <[email protected] <mailto:chan.jmjm%40gmail.com>
<chan.jmjm%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Good Morning To You,
> >
> > As a scientist or a scholar, the training is to
> remain absolutely
> > objective, be an observer and never contaminate the
> fact in front of us
> > with our own interpretation or subjective filtering.
> This is well
> > respected and understood.
>
> I don't think this is true anymore. Since at least Kuhn's
> _Structure
> of Scientific Revolutions_, people have been pretty clear
> that we all
> have a perspective, and that while that structure changes
> as we
> experience life, experiments, data, etc, we can't
> arbitrarily see any
> possible theory. Old school geologists couldn't see the
> many many
> traces of continetal drift, and geology did not see it
> until the old
> school died.
>
> Perhaps science could be described as a group activity
> that strives to
> build a shared understanding about life that holds up for
> people with
> varying subjectivities.
>
> Even the classical scientific method that is more often
> seen in
> elementary schools than science labs starts out with an
> assumption
> that the observer cannot be objective, and tries to find
> ways to work
> with that fact. A priori written down predictions are a
> response to
> that. Double blind surveys are a response to that
> subjective observer.
> doing an experiment is humble: it is to say that reason is
> not enough,
> we must engage the real world.
>
> Not to say that science is zen or Zen or zazen, but it is
> an actual
> human activity, distinct from the ideas we may have about
> it.
>
> Congrats again on your promotion, JMJM.
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
