Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
|
In the West we have focussed on dealing with the will first and ignoring or repressing the unconscious until recently. I think the number of enlightened masters in the East compared to the West, demonstrates working on the unconscious first is more efficient.
Spot ON!
i believe alot of americans are filling their subconscious with drama and violence infused TV shows and games. And won't admit it!! And they wonder why all the outbursts in children.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
|
Read these two paragraphs from Wikipedia under “The Age of Enlightenment”. In the end, Largo is a Romantic…not the worst but not the first.
The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.[1] Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange.[2] The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought. This new way of thinking was that rational thought begins with clearly stated principles, uses correct logic to arrive at conclusions, tests the conclusions against evidence, and then revises the principles in the light of the evidence.
Later in the article…
The Scientific Revolution is closely tied to the Enlightenment, as its discoveries overturned many traditional concepts and introduced new perspectives on nature and man's place within it. The Enlightenment flourished until about 1790–1800, at which point the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, gave way to Romanticism, which placed a new emphasis on emotion; a Counter-Enlightenment began to increase in prominence. The Romantics argued that the Enlightenment was reductionistic insofar as it had largely ignored the forces of imagination, mystery, and sentiment.[4]
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
|
As for will versus no mind, I will say again, that the purpose of achieving no-mind is not to lose the will but to change the will so that it works for the benefit of other beings and not just oneself.
i meant to ask JGill if he ever practiced Will "training" in a group.
When i was in Crew at ucsb training for the olympics. Our young coach was very progressive. He looked worldwide for training techniques for the body and mind. We used to do this thing called The East German Circuit. Wow! when we got done, you were to pooped to poop. We also did alot of work on Mind Engrams(Ingrams?), like short movies in ur head. He'd have us all 9 of us sit on the floor just like we were sitting in the boat. Put our right hand on the man's shoulder in front of you and close ur eyes. For six minutes he would very intensely go through an imagined race scenario. It was the coxswain's job to just as intensely talk us through each scenario. The coach would put us behind in the race. While we 8 rowers would swing back and forth with precise unison as if stroking water, the coxswain with positive reinforcement would paint a picture in our heads of what it would take for us to win. i would say we were "Will Building", we weren't practicing to try harder. Heck, we were always trying as hard as we could at the time. No, we were going beyond that. We were put in situations where we were behind and we HAD to do WHATEVER it took to get back out in front! Beyond Trying! YOU MADE IT HAPPEN, in your head! And muscle followed suit.. Big difference! And VERY powerful!
Needless to say we never lost a race.
BTW; now that coach is at ucsd coaching football make'in the big bucks!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.
These two words seem to contradict each other
Anyone can reason to the fact that it's better for an individual to be in a structured group.
History is going to get even harder to imagine the more we get used to having TV's, computers, cell phones and other communication devices.
They had nothing but traditions to relay their reason..
|
|
MikeL
Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:03pm PT
|
Jgill:
What is will, anyway? Saying that you have something will be difficult to support unless you can say what it is that you have. "Will" is a pretty slippery thing, I'd say. It's unlikely to be any different than a thought, a feeling, or maybe even a sensation. But what are any of those? Can't say.
Jstan: Scientists don't say. The data says.
I'll argue with this. Scientists Do say. They must, for the data do not provide interpretations of themselvews, but only ground one interpretation or another. Although you don't argue with the data, you argue with interpreters of the data.
HFCS: What (more) is mind?
Answer your own question. That's the topic of this thread. Lama Tsong Kapa said mind is *like* space. (He was serious.) What do you think it is?
eeyonkee:
Sometimes Wikipedia just doesn't provide enough "there" there. I think that characterization of The Enlightenment is not so good.
The Enlightenment was not one thing, but many ideas that sort of hung together. Science as you know it today did not exist then. Research suggests that science as you know it began to emerge around 1860 when measurement devices started to be developed.
The Enlightenment (French, not the Buddhist one) revolved around three interconnected notions. Much of the conversation occurred in the Salons in Paris, not among scholarly intelligencia.
First, progress was pretty much continuous. Things would always get better. This was in opposition to many scholars who thought Man's best efforts were behind him. That idea was referred to, I think, as "The argument of the ancients," which said that the Greeks and Romans showed us the best Man had to offer (his golden age). The Renaissance was oriented to that ideas (the past, not the future).
Second, education was the basis for progress. With better and more widely available education, Man and his societies would get better and richer (not materially).
Third, the basis for both progress and what education had to offer was the honing of reason, and reason was juxtaposed to the passions. Passions were bad, reason was good according to The Enlightenment (but reason was not yet equated with rationality). Romanticism (ala Rousseau and others) was a response to what some thought was a sterilization of humanity by reason, and there were many (especially German thinkers) who thought that what was creative, innovative, and god-like emerged from the workings of the passions.
Scientific thought as we know it today was not available to the minds of its day who were interested in the study of Nature. Their studies tended to be largely philosophical speculation supplemented or supported by a great deal of personal observation. Indeed, it was pretty much only the wealthy who could spend their time observing and documenting Nature.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
|
I suggest we play this out by proxy. I nominate Ed Hartouni to represent the Enlightenment. I imagine that he can represent the likes of jstan, HFCS, healyje, jGill, MH2, Ward Trotter, myself ... many others (like Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson...).
Largo is as good as you can get for a Romantic philosopher (Rousseau, Nietzche, Hegel...). As he has so emphatically emphasized, he is not in to "the supernatural". That's perfect, as somebody with obvious religious affiliation would be, um, compromised for this role, IMO. Largo is like Rousseau. I imagine he can represent Jan, BlueBlocker, WBraun, MikeL, and others.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:28pm PT
|
They ARE good salesmen, as a rule.
So, if everybody is with me, this means that only Ed and Largo can post to this thread from now on. I suggest you email your personal champion to make your views felt.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:45pm PT
|
I think the problem with trying to draw up two sides is that the science side has a fairly unified world view while the other is much more diverse.
Largo is not a scientist but he is much too scientific to be a romantic philosopher. Rousseau he is not. There is nothing more disciplined and structured than western philosophy and Zen. Noble Savage doesn't work at all there. Mike L would be closer to Rousseau than Largo in my opinion.
I'm more like the Chinese than any westerner - a little Confucianism, a little Taoism, and a little Buddhism all thrown in. Werner is solidly rooted in the Indian tradition and while he personally may be more attracted to the devotional aspects of that tradition he also has a foundation in Indian rationality.Blueblocr is a true American original.
I think it is the diversity of world views on the non science side that drives the scientists mad from time to time as they are used to a more structured world view. And from their side, jgill can play it both ways when he chooses.I don't know if this is the usual relationship of math to science or not, but he does it often.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
|
Well and good, Jan, but I'm thinking that you're not Largo or Ed. Clearly, my suggestion is not likely to work and I rescind it.
Seriously Jan, that is a very thoughtful and measured response, but are you telling us that jgill goes both ways (I'm pretty sure he's married and all)?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
|
Seriously Jan, that is a very thoughtful and measured response, but are you telling us that jgill goes both ways (I'm pretty sure he's married and all)? (eey)
;>)
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
|
Jstan: Scientists don't say. The data says.
It seems they SAY alot! They say gravity is caused by the pull of the sun.
But is that true? There are many scientific opinions today. More saying.
They say the universe is some +/-14 bil yrs old. Now there's speculation to that, more saying.
Isn't a lot of the scientific method about predicting an outcome, then executing a test to reinforce that statement? Does that go without say'in.
Some scientists like to say things like, "there's a whole bunch of dark energy out there", then stand back and wait till someone finds it, then say, "see i told you so".
Isn't every theory just someone saying?
Wasn't science the first philosophy?
i'm jus say'in
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:52pm PT
|
Jgill: What is will, anyway? (MikeL)
The purposeful aspect of I, as opposed to its reflective aspect.
(mumbo, jumbo, huh?)
I don't know if this is the usual relationship of math to science or not, but he does it often (Jan)
Mathematics, although cited as the "Queen of Science", is not a true science. "Theory" has a different meaning in math than it does in physics, for instance. In fact, mathematics may be closer to philosophy than it is to the physical sciences. Thus I may swing from the chandeliers in our discussions, free from attachment to either side!
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
|
ML said "What is will, anyway? Saying that you have something will be difficult to support unless you can say what it is that you have. "Will" is a pretty slippery thing, I'd say. It's unlikely to be any different than a thought, a feeling, or maybe even a sensation. But what are any of those? Can't say."
well said ML.
ZM Seung Sahn used to say it was important to not be attached to your opinion, your condition or your situation in order to see things clearly. Sounds like a scientist.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:31pm PT
|
I see most of this Eastern meditative life-coaching as common sense cast in pretty language.
I think that leaving the discussion to Ed and Largo is an excellent idea.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:40pm PT
|
I'll follow eeyonkee's last pronouncement on this:
Clearly, my suggestion is not likely to work and I rescind it.
and breath a sigh of relief...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:42pm PT
|
re: romantic philosophy, etc.
The motion: Philosophy is dead.
Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, with Stephen Hawking as dessert, weigh in...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYmIKc2wdZs&feature=youtu.be
.....
I'm finishing up the Hawking Mlodinow "Grand Design" now, how coincidental is that! Good discussion, clear writing on determinism and free will, too. Progress is afoot, hallelujah!
Now with theology dead, "theist philosophy" can't be far behind.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
|
I see most of this Eastern meditative life-coaching as common sense cast in pretty language.
Yea, and if you throw in some yoga you get lots of pretty girls.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!