Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
|
I only look in here while taking a quick break from my other work, which requires my full attention.
i know what'cha mean!
i only look in here when i'm taking a dump!
and the first thing i usually see, is Fruity.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2014 - 10:36pm PT
|
What Mike is suggesting is - that from which all stuff is generated – otherwise known as emptiness
A pleasant and thoughtful metaphysical retreat: all reduces to zero. Assuming this position I will state that all mathematics reduces to the empty set - in fact it does according to the Peano Axioms. However, nothing very interesting happens there and mathematicians merely smile and acknowledge this form of emptiness and move up the resulting mountain of knowledge and engage the intellect in creative discovery.
So, let us all accept the fact that stuff is generated from emptiness. So what? Meditators claim that somehow engaging emptiness is vastly illuminating, but meditators simply stop at 0 and fall under its spell, fixated, producing little of the substance that emptiness generates.
Different strokes for different folks . . .
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 07:58am PT
|
No doubt, reality is hard in places, we all know this. "Life's a bitch and then you die." How many times have we all seen this on a bumper sticker over the course of our lives? The world and how it works is steeped in injustices, many times nothing less than catastrophic, spirit-destroying injustices. This is a plain given. (Just a couple days ago, it was the ten year anniversary of the tsunami in the south that killed 400k plus people.)
Regarding science what's the alternative? To turn back? To leave it on the shelf and not touch it? Think about that and what it really means. How many here are history buffs. I took a sabbatical in my life a couple decades ago now, a couple year's worth, just to study our natural and human histories. Any serious study of our history should convince you that very little if any of it was a walk in the park. Quite the contrary: Nasty. Brutish. Short. Unjust! Particularly if you weren't born into an easy situation, which might mean 90% of us. We're the only species on the planet intelligent enough, capable enough, to give science a go (really science and knowledge a go) in an attempt to make it work, to see if it can't give us a leg up on better living and our efforts to sustain something of a civilization.
It seems people hate on science mostly for a couple reasons: 1) For the potentially harmful if not lethal technology it can supply us with. (Iran's probably going to have the bomb in the next few years.) (2) For the knowledge of our nature it provides us - that we're not comfortable with or we just don't value at all. (Esp against the backdrop of our traditional belief that so much of our culture and institutions are built upon; and so very many of us were raised on.) In regard to the second reason, it's nature that's the culprit mostly, is it not? while science is the messenger?
So there are sides of life (or sides of nature or sides of the world, however you prefer to frame it) I don't like any more than you guys… But what should we do policy or strategy-wise, ignore the understanding or disregard the knowledge of these "sides" insofar as they and the knowledge of them suck? Alright, say we do that, say we ignore or select against these sucky parts. Then what effects in our communities and on up will that (policy or strategy) have on education, including public education, which we say we value?
It does seem insofar as these predicaments or pickles don't resolve; or insofar as these often so maddening conflicts, dilemmas and what not do not work out in our favor, it won't be entirely our fault. After all, we were sorta fated to them in ways, many ways, it sure seems to me.
Anyways. Keep the faith. (The evidence-based faith.)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 08:14am PT
|
Meditators claim that somehow engaging emptiness is vastly illuminating
The rules of the game seem to forbid them making such a claim. However, emptiness clearly is not enough or we would not keep getting told about it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 08:32am PT
|
Base:
Interesting post. You say mankind is no longer seriously affected by the main law of evolution. I’m surprised that has not drawn a response yet here.
“Selection” and “environment” and “specie” may be other than what we may have thought of those ideas in the past. We may now live more in social worlds that affect reproduction than our physical worlds. Perhaps in the future, we will live in more spiritual environments (gasp!) where “adaptability” may be other than we have think today. For example, economically, we thought that raw materials were THE critical resources that enabled higher levels of reproduction through successful survival. Now we are arguing economically that talent (specific skills like leadership, collaboration, etc.) is the critical resource. Next, IMO, it is looking like creativity, passion, engagement, etc. look to becoming critical enablers. Those “resources” would appear to be unteachable attitudes. From material to skills to attitudes. (What’s next?)
Everything changes, and when they do, the notion of what is the basis for what is important (the ability to garner more resources), who or what gets selected (populations for specie?), and even who or what does the selection may shift for us (what’s “the environment” anyway)? A general notion of evolution might be better conceptualized as “unfoldment.” Finally, is unfoldment or evolution a driving force, or is it a pulling force? If it’s a force at all (a “law”), where or what is the law? At first the law looks terribly obvious—until someone wants more understanding than an abstraction, a model, a concept.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 08:44am PT
|
Hey, Randisi:
I’m not a student of Serres, so maybe you could give me some instruction. I’m interested.
Largo is certainly right: I Was thinking of “emptiness,” an absence of stuff, when I made my comments.
It seems to me (and some other folks) that the mental-rational mind is especially good at taking things apart, deconstruction, analysis (breaking things down into their parts). The mind is not all that good, however, at putting things together holistically. Other means of understanding (emotion, instinct, myth or narratives, the unconscious) are better at unified understanding, albeit perhaps with lesser self-awareness.
It is relatively easy—compared to construction and theory-building and verification processes—to show holes and problems with mental-rational constructions. One does not have to make or defend a position at the end of the day—at least not an ultimate definition or description that can be articulated.
Look at how the scientific process works. It works through analysis, parsimony, falsification, and abstraction; it is not a process of unification, of putting things together, of proving what is true, of including everything found situationally in understanding. The former is not that difficult for almost anyone to do with a little bit of instruction and practice. You never have to get to a final sense of reality. The latter, on the other hand, appears impossible to do. Why IS that?
A few very wise sages (and I’m following them) have implied that those very set of issues should tell us what is really what; anyone should be able to look and see for themselves if they are honest, careful, and systematic with their own observations.
What IS really what? In a few words, . . . IT is not anything that anyone can find or pin down. What’s left? And where does that leave any honest, systematic, and careful observer? It appears to leave a person in an impossible position rationally.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 11:40am PT
|
but meditators simply stop at 0 and fall under its spell, fixated, producing little of the substance that emptiness generates.
-
So we're back to the old turn that the "real" work, the true and valuable path, is once again the substance that, quite naturally we can measure and quantify, all else being a "spell" that the meditators, in their brain-dead default pattern, become fixated upon. Sort of like Narcissis staring at his reflection in the pond.
And Jesus wept . . .
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 11:55am PT
|
Evolution never stops, of course - selection pressure, mutations, recombination of DNA - all continue as long as a species sticks around.
Take beauty, for example. it turns out there are statistically common standards for beauty - facial symmetry, facial geometry, voice pitch - bred into us by evolution, which effects modern mate selection to the degree that people are becoming more 'beautiful' - as measured by these innate standards.
In a population of 7 billion of the most genetically diverse species ever, today's mutation rate is through the roof - its just that such mutations have little chance of becoming common through such a large, mobile population any time soon. There is very little cladism in today's highly mobile world.
Our distinct races are rapidly being diluted in today's great genetic blender. It's not difficult to imagine a near future where distinct races are a thing of the past, given current trends.
Then there is the evolution of memes - technology, culture, language - all of which directly effect our own biological evolution through our mating habits and general state of health with regards to same. And who kknows were genetic engineering and AI will take us?
Yup. Evolution is alive and well among the hairless monkeys.
None of this matters too much, though - us old farts will be the last generation to survive intact before the robots come for the next one.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
|
So we're back to the old turn that the "real" work, the true and valuable path, is once again the substance that, quite naturally we can measure and quantify, all else being a "spell" that the meditators, in their brain-dead default pattern, become fixated upon. Sort of like Narcissis staring at his reflection in the pond.
Yep, sort of.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 12:15pm PT
|
how much is that "substance that emptiness generates" in the window?
Or mirror, more accurately.
I live for metaphysicaldygook like this.
What I want to know is
What's love got to do with it?
It's actually a serious question. How does the void enable us to love each other better?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
|
7 billion people on the planet.
This planet can easily sustain 100 billion people.
But you don't know how.
All you know is caveman methods masqueraded as modern science.
How does the void enable us to love each other better?
You're not even remotely ready to even understand that yet.
You're out in parking lot stuffing your face at a tailgating barbeque wondering what it's like to play on the field .....
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
|
You're out in parking lot stuffing your face at a tailgating barbeque wondering what it's like to play on the field ...
Wow...it's like you've been reading my diary.
|
|
NotThirsty
Boulder climber
Canaduh
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
|
"DMT = aliens + mushrooms x 1 million". lol
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 02:47pm PT
|
Dude, watch it with the combo DMT and psylicybin...you'll end up on the Planet Nefarious with a busted transporter.
Hahaha
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 02:49pm PT
|
Mike,
My comment that we humans are no longer evolving "normally" is based on one thing: We are now almost free from natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Almost anyone can have kids and pass on their DNA today, "fit" or not. We are well fed and have strong reproductive urges. Modern medicine has cured many diseases (some of which are genetic), and people who would have died a million years ago now thrive and reproduce.
Despite what Werner says, the average life expectancy of a person living in a first world country has grown from only 30 years from birth in the early part of the 20th century to 67 years today. Remember that life expectancy includes infant deaths. If you made it to 30 back then, you still had a fairly long life expectancy.
Natural selection is a brilliant and simple idea. It has been proven through both observation and experimentation a zillion times. It is a part of nature and biology. You can easily see it in rapidly reproducing species such as bacteria who replicate in a few hours. Human generations are 25 years or so, so variation and change is hard to see.
We are nigh no longer subject to that law. We have cured many causes of infant mortality, as well as countless diseases. Anyone can have kids, and modern medicine keeps them alive in situations where those kids would have died young 200 years ago. So they do pass on their DNA. If there was no modern medicine, or a lack of food, many people would die and not pass on their DNA. It is simple and a totally physical fact.
My observation that this is now a BAD thing (bad to pass on bad genes) is true, but it opens the door to a whole shop of horrors. What if a committee decided if you weren't worthy of passing on your genes? If you have ever seen the B movie "Idiocracy," then you will know the problem. Hitler sought genetic purity in a very evil way. The first thing he did was murder everyone in the insane asylums. The Khmer Rouge killed anyone who wore glasses according to a friend of mine. Perhaps modern Cambodians have better than normal eyesight.
However, our population growth is now overwhelming the planet. When it comes to vital natural resources, the tank is headed towards empty. We humans are going to have to stop having so many kids. How this would be implemented could be simple or it could be barbaric. Just use your imagination. The Chinese did it with their one child policy. It was a necessity for their country, but how it was implemented wasn't always pretty.
Every species unknowingly strives to accomplish one thing: reproduce to pass on its DNA. That is well covered in Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene, and is clearly correct. I'm not very fond of his other books, but this one is beyond dispute on anything other than aesthetic grounds. Strip everything else away, and you are only left with genes unknowingly competing with each other to survive. Kind of like a game of dice. Bacteria are far more successful at it than vertebrates.
We all seem to get sideways because of our life experiences. We all took our own paths in life, and my rules for life are not the same as yours.
Take Largo, for example. He has his own Wiki page now! (I swear to God that I stumbled on it accidentally by googling "stonemasters," while trying to find a copy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Long_(climber);
I have no idea how accurate the webpage is, but it says that he studied humanities at the graduate level:
A 1971 graduate of Upland High School in Upland, California, Long studied humanities at the University of LaVerne (graduating with departmental honors), Claremont Graduate School and Claremont School of Theology
That explains a little about why he speaks like he does.
I studied Geology at the University of Oklahoma and have been working physical science ever since. Our life experiences deeply color our beliefs. Some of it is that simple.
Who is right, who is wrong...is colored by what we learned along the way. It is so bad that we simply do not budge for long periods of time on this thread, but there was a time when it was productive (for me).
That was when we were discussing that word "qualia," and subjective human experience. I could see that some of this was clearly correct, even from a strictly physical perspective. It is just how the human mind works. Deeply subjective. We aren't born with a ruler in our brains. We have to build rulers to accurately determine length. And on it goes.
What I do not like is when we get so entrenched. One side is characterized as a bunch of touchy feely woo woo guys who get their information only from the soul. The other side is characterized as a hopelessly straight jacketed bunch of physical purists who have no hope of understanding anything spiritual. I've been quite guilty of engaging in this mud slinging at times, and I'm not proud of it. It is a false dichotomy with most of us.
To me, Isaac Newton was more important than Ghandi. To you this probably sounds ludicrous. I studied Newton, though. Largo might not have.
What we need to do is communicate clearly to each other. No fancy words. Keep it simple. If we don't keep it simple, we will spend 20 posts arguing over the definition of a single word. These discussions shouldn't be a creative writing contest.
From my perspective, on the other side of the fence, I CAN peek over at Largo's side and understand some of his ideas. We should all peek over the fence rather than allowing it to become a continental divide which leads only to bickering and bad feelings. Everyone here is intelligent, with fairly long lives and many experiences.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 05:13pm PT
|
Base,
I'm in an airport and can't write much now. You make great points and I want to engage on the issues you bring up. The keys are too small, and we've had too many beers while watching the games here at the airport. I wish they were with you here in Phx.
I'd favor reconciliation over Truth. It's not compromise but a more "aperspectival" view that I'm preferencing. No view but all views without any being dominant. This is not about being nice but a sense of openness. I sense that possibility in you.
Pin down nothing. Everything is an open conversation. There are no final definitive answers. That's what I'm seeing these days.
Cheers.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
We should all peek over the fence
Okay.
http://www.cst.edu/
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
What's love got to do with it?
Great question. This is a head based thread, but the seat of emptiness is the middle of your heart. This is a central tenet of the Big Mind path of a former All American swimmer turned Zen master with an interesting method of teaching. You might find it interesting.
http://bigmind.org/genpo-roshi
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
|
So we're back to the old turn that the "real" work, the true and valuable path, is once again the substance that, quite naturally we can measure and quantify, all else being a "spell" that the meditators, in their brain-dead default pattern, become fixated upon. Sort of like Narcissis staring at his reflection in the pond
Well, you've nailed it, John.
But implicate and explicate orders of David Bohm is quite intriguing, even though I used the pejorative "metaphysics." He postulates a sort of substratum of reality from which normal physical conditions emerge and which may be in some way mathematically describable (the Wiki page shows the wave equations and talks of "guiding equations"). I suppose the part that is less than acceptable to experimental physicists is the un-testability of unobserved phenomena. How this could possibly relate to consciousness in some scientifically-acceptable manner is a task possibly well worth pursuing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!