Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 11:11am PT
|
Fort, what you describe are incidental experiences, stuff we all stumble into in passing. What is being described here is the result of taking an intentional path and applying a specific technique to create a space in which experiences occur. Lumping all of this together is simplistic, IME. The former, incidental stuff rarely runs into insight, which is the point of the later.
Owing to teaching comittments I won't be able to ramble on this thread for much of the next month, but have fun when I'm gone.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
Again, people really oughta declare the number of alcoholic beverages they pound before contributing to this thread, just so we have some notion per origins.
Interesting that you should keep circling round to that not-so-subtle ad hominem when it's often occurred to me to wonder, what with, er, recent events, how much of this no-thing babbling might just be the oxy-talkin'.
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 12:44pm PT
|
You know the interesting thing coming from the faux science camp (amateur scientists posing as pros) is the total lack of substantive new info per this conversation, which apparently is sailing right over their heads/experience - somethnig which they lie about in the most brazen and bold-faced manner, or tango arond via lame ass strtegems. For example:
A simple stastement is suddenly "preaching" (conflate EVERYTING you don't know with ol' time religion - can I get wittness Herr Dingus!)
Asking a simple question per how someone arrived at their conclusions is labeled "ignorance," while Fruitcake himself, that pitiful Homer Simpson of this entire thread, offeers no wisdom from his OWN self to correct my mistaken thinking. (When you cannot explain how you arrived at a conclusion, or are simply guessing - just deflect).
And when terrifically wonky rambling is in plain evidence, and I voice my suspicions that someone might be well into the bottle or street drugs, you simply cry "ad hominem" and accuse me of the same ("inversion" in psychological terms), while never answering the question. Incidentally, amigo, argumentum ad hominem "is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact or information."
Now when someone writes a whopper like: "dubious proposition at best beyond mere glimmerings of that which - " and I suspect John Barlycorn is at work here, are you suggesting that this article of tortured and fractured language is in fact perfectly lucid, and that claiming otherwise is a simple “fallacy.” Are YOU drunk? I read that kind of jivespeak and it's not a stretch to wonder if you've been drinking. Of course a drunk will always deflect or change topics or invert and accuse - of that we may be sure.
That's the White Elephant in the room per those grasping so desperately to a Newtonial model of the world, where things are exactly as we see them - the simple fact that the foundation stones that Ed (an actual scientist) has now laid out to walk on are simply too slipery for you'al to tred.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
|
Fort wrote: The former, incidental stuff rarely runs into insight, which is the point of the later.
I once asked you what insights are to be earned for all of the travelling into the depths of the no-thing. All I got I got back is that a small percentage of alcoholics have found a way to deal with their cravings.
That's all that I gave you, Fort, but that doesn't mean that's all that is there.
A person should show some capacity to hear something before they can, and all you have shown is a terrific desire to cling to your currnt world view. Have at it. By your own admission you're not open to new learning.
I thought the comments per recovery were relevant to you because your brand of rigid thinking is commonly associated with the recovery movement, but only you would know for sure.
Of course no one would ever mistake you for an inner adventurer, and trying to make you into one can only result in what they used to say about trying to make a pig fly.
JL
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Most of the insights one has in meditation are of a very subjective personal nature. Given the attitude of people on here, why would anyone in their right mind want to expose their inner lives to that kind of ridicule?
The other benefit which Ed so well describes, is used by some of us to solve problems in our professional lives. If we tried to describe those, they would no doubt be so technical as to either bore or confound most folks here.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 01:55pm PT
|
The problem with some on this thread is they want something for nothing or simply do not believe there is terrain cut off from traditional thinking. A persistant thought here is that unless you are reasoning toward some logical coclusion you are "wasting time."
And the problem with me on this thread is that I jot most of this stuff off on my phone and end up with a gazillion typos. Sorry.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
HFCS - you think that evolution is a "design"? perhaps you misunderstood evolution... or perhaps you've confused what the meaning of the word "design" is...
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
FM said "C'mon guys, suddenly the idea that some experiences might be beyond words isn't new. For many cultures these experiences, as hard to describe as they might have been, could be experienced with a few Peyote buttons, a small bowl of opium, or a couple of weeks alone in the desert.
For early humans, every experience was beyond words, as words had yet to be experienced. Even the word "I" is a relatively new concept. But words are only as effective as the communication that comes from their collective use. As of now, those with the so-called meditative experience have utterly failed to communicate (with words or otherwise) it's utility or experience beyond that of having a really profound day-dream."
If you can perceive that "I" is a mental construct. You have gotten to the start line. Before then the meditation isn't much different then any other self satisfaction/improvement activity. The attachment to the "I" construct is so strong for many that they find the whole idea that it is a construct absurd.
But once you perceive it you can see that all suffering has the construct of "I" attached to it. Not pain but suffering. It (meditation)can be an effective tool to less your suffering and consequently others suffering.
But if you don't approach the "I" construct in your practice IMO it isn't much different than golfing.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
I must say that to be lumped together by fructose along with Ed and Largo, is an honor, even if it was intended as an insult.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 04:06pm PT
|
Hey, we don't call Fruity the Gomer Pyle of Mind Adventures for nothing. He earned that title fair and square.
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
But if you don't approach the "I" construct in your practice IMO it isn't much different than golfing.
Then again, there's much to be said about the inner game of golf.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
often I have to take a break as my thought have fallen into patterns that are not converging on a solution. get up, walk around, and basically abandoned thinking about the problem. what is being abandoned is not the thinking, but the discursive process. it is not unusual that diverting the discursive process from controlling the thinking on the particular topic frees up other ways to think through the problem. (Ed)
This has to be a common experience in science and math. I use it all the time and have since grad school days. These days it comes in handy if I encounter a Jumbles word that I can't get immediately! Actually, it is of more benefit as you age for studies have shown old people think better when moving around, whereas there is not a discernible effect for the young.
If you can perceive that "I" is a mental construct. You have gotten to the start line. Before then the meditation isn't much different then any other self satisfaction or improvement activity. The attachment to the "I" construct is so strong for many that they find the whole idea that it is a construct absurd (PSP)
If I is a mental construct, then so is no-thingness, or would you say no-thingness is the absence of a mental action. Try attaining no-thingness while unconscious. Oh wait . . . there's the shortcut!
Just foolin' around
;>)
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
JG said "If I is a mental construct, then so is no-thingness, or would you say no-thingness is the absence of a mental action."
"I" is not the problem, it is being attached to "I" (not recognizing it as a mental construct) that causes the suffering. As far as No-thingness or emptiness mind IMO it is mind that is not attached (or reactive to) thinking. It is observer mind just awareness moment to moment. It allows you to hear and see clearly and then to function clearly.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
PSP, my experiences with the apparent separation of "I" from the body convinced me that "I" was "pure will." From your Zen perspective where does "will" reside? Do you even believe in free-will? There are studies that imply what we think of as free-will is in fact something arising from the subconscious over which we have little "free" choice.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
For early humans, every experience was beyond words, as words had yet to be experienced. (FortMentäl)
Let's try to think back to the time before words. Words perhaps grew out of sounds already in use by humans, proto-humans, and other animals; sounds useful to communicate such information as, "danger!"
It seems that words could have remained simply a way to communicate to others in the group. For humans, though, it may have been a significant development in consciousness to learn that you could talk to yourself!
We are still dealing with the fallout.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
JG said "PSP, my experiences with the apparent separation of "I" from the body convinced me that "I" was "pure will." From your Zen perspective where does "will" reside? Do you even believe in free-will? There are studies that imply what we think of as free-will is in fact something arising from the subconscious over which we have little "free" choice."
I don't know what free will is.
I am not versed in philosophy just a zen practitioner. From a zen point of view you are either coming at things to enhance "I's" situation or you are minus the "I" and no "I" in the equation automatically creates a compassionate response.
from werner's point of view No 'I" equals Big "I" . Some people refer to it as small 'I" and Big "I".
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
you are minus the "I" and no "I" in the equation automatically creates a compassionate response (PSP)
OK, so you are not suspending the "I" while in the "no-thingness" meditative mode necessarily, but in daily life as well. Does "no-thingness" also appear in normal circumstances?
For humans, though, it may have been a significant development in consciousness to learn that you could talk to yourself! (MH2)
Good point, MH2. When we talk to ourselves are we exhibiting split-personalities? Where does "I" exist in this context? In the dominant of the two? Or is this a simple proof that "I" is illusory and can be made to wander about and even split in two in one's psyche? I wonder how common it is to have three entities conversing in one's self? Don't think I've had that experience.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
healyje: 'Letting go' of your existence to 'experience' essence? A somewhat dubious proposition at best beyond mere glimmerings of that which, by 'our nature', we are no more designed to experience in a significant way than the moment-to-moment 'workings' of our Vagus Nerve.
Ed: ...understanding anything begins with careful observation. you can think of meditation as part of that method.
I somehow suspect you aren't going to get Largo to buy into the idea that meditation is a subset of observation or that what he's [not] doing when meditating is some esoteric form of 'observing', but of course I could be wrong in that.
Ed: ...and we aren't "designed" to do anything, what a strange expression from someone educated in biology...
Not the best choice of words for sure, but the point is the same regardless - our [conscious] minds are capable of minimal [direct] experience with the 'workings' of our parasympathetic nervous system. You can only hold your breath so long, lower your heart rate so low, etc., etc. So it is with voyaging the void / essence.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Largo: I'd be interested in hearing about the experiences you had to ever arrive at this pronouncement, by what means do you know how we were designed, and to what end. And what, exactly, is "significant." Are you working off a survival model? Enlightn us.
"Enlightn us", seriously? Here we are 2800+ posts later during which an esteemed man of words such as yourself has tortuously circumvented the soul of his own proposition.
It's esay to sound off about any aspect of this stuff, but if your data is not based on careful empirical observation, you get howlers like, "dubious proposition at best beyond mere glimmerings of that which - " Never mind meditation. A bonehead course in "the English" is indicated.
You can howl, but the point remains, 'no thing' is no more and no less than a place you can't 'be' in much of any significant way. And by 'significant' I mean it can take months or years of meditation to just get a toehold on that wily wabbit, thus the comparison to trying to [directly] 'experience' your Vagus nerve.
Oh, and so you do subscribe to Ed's idea of meditation as observation - that is interesting; who'd of guessed?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!