Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Access to education, training, and awareness during critical development periods - most particularly early teens,
Wouldn't you call this environment changing genitcs?
I agree with ya on the whole.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Suppose you are walking toward a wall and you notice that there is a line on it . . .
The commentary Lovegasoline has posted is the best meditation writing I've seen on this thread. The analogy cited above and the material on perceptual thresholds makes so much more sense than all the babble about no-thingness, awareness fields, Hilbert spaces, raw awareness, no physical extent, etc.
Thanks.
I see some have exercised free will and that free will is back in action here. Perhaps the only good that can come of this lies in a discussion of legal accountability for behavior.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
Why is this particular bad piece of writing being promoted on this thread? And for what purpose(s)? To further which dialogue?
I'll caution anyone exalting in the writer's analysis to take a deep breath, ratchet their emotional investment down several notches, and look elsewhere for a serviceable treatment of postmodernity.
Um, yeah, about that. Clearly Mr. Patterson was not paying attention in Art History 101. And though I'm far from exalting in his argument, I do like his little take on "il n'y a pas de hors-text," at the end.
Of course this has all been argued before. Just a spectator, here. The post-modern and its detractors all make for great entertainment.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
If you begin to perceive consciousness (your own, not other people’s), then you have begun to tap into what’s called awareness by some practitioners. “Objects” in consciousness / mind flit about, but awareness is like a mountain that stretches in all directions.
Questions / conversations about free will and responsibility tend to be heavy-handed here. No thing is clear-cut and solid. We make them seem that way. If there is any sense at all to “free will,” it might be somewhat captured loosely with intentions.
As was suggested above, the roles you have found yourself in were not chosen by you (e.g., father, teacher, human being, in this place, in this time, born to your parents, with this or that educational experience, your friends, your natural talents, etc.). In those roles, you have some influence, but you do not have control. A metaphor of floating down a river might be apt. You can’t help but go downstream, but you can paddle about. Your intentions is your paddle, but you cannot change who and what you are; you can’t get out of the river.
In notions concerning improvisation, psychological presence, wu wei, authenticity, “being in the zone” (flow), engagement, hot (vs. cold) cognition, free play, mastery, spontaneity, being natural, and “Gnothi seauton”, . . . what we partially understand is that we should find ways to express who and what we uniquely are. To do that entails letting go, connecting to the wellspring of creativity (the unconscious), and quieting down monkey mind. The way to best control yourself is through your soul, your heart, your intentions. Seems woefully indirect, but it’s a straight path to grace, and with that, it seems, comes the power of the universe. (Woo-woo.)
I sit still quietly maybe once a day first thing in the morning.
1. I focus on something, anything ahead of me. Gently. Chill. I Relax.
2. My peripheral vision arises into attention after a while (a soft broad focus). My perception present broad canvases, sets of sounds, and arrays of feelings. My body is a sensing device. I try not to interfere.
Here I first began to discover openness, where objects are neither this nor that. Emptiness is hinted at.
3. What may come next to me is a sense of the emotions that are going on around me, to include that of animals, people, my next door neighbors, my wife sleeping in the other room, my own emotions. At first this sense was vague, nondescript, maybe even imaginary for me. Emotions appear to be energy flows, and they are difficult to say what they are as feelings—but they seem to be all over the place. (You’re feeling one right now, aren’t you?).
Paul Ekman’s and Joe Navarro’s works suggest how we can feel or sense the emotions of others, but they talk primarily about symptoms.
4. What shows up next for me is just being present. Experiencing the here and now. That’s all. Nothing more. I find my way here most of the time. At first this looked like being aware of place and time and activity. But after many observations, I got the distinct notion that “here and now” is simply a projection of mind. Whatever or wherever or whenever I think I am, I am mind.
Some people speak about the importance or usefulness of mindfulness (being present), and they focus on mindfulness in activity. These speakers appear to be trying to make us into better people, better workers, better climbers, better this or that. I’d say mindfulness is not about doing anything. It’s about being, and an openness to what an observer cannot avoid. What would that be? That would appear to be consciousness. When a person is truly mindful, they have an open (and empty) mind. Then I find I am connected to an energy source of creativity that might be the unconscious. Remarkable things—creative, insightful, lively, symbolic, unexplainable answers, interesting associations, etc.—pop up, unconnected to anything that I’m aware of.
Here, on and off the pillow, I am on automatic pilot. I’m not doing anything, but things are happening in wonderful ways. I have become a function. This seems the action of non-action, wu-wei, the Tao. I naturally find this mindlessness, this loss of control, this loss of self-consciousness in my area of professional practice as a teacher. There is a dignity about it.
5. Sometimes, presence next seems to drop away to leave just *being.* This doesn’t seem like much of a change from the previous sequence, but it is to me. Just *being* goes before consciousness; it supports consciousness. It is not an experience; there is no experience to point to in just being. There are no sensations or lack of sensations. It is a lack of a lack, an absence of an absence; the category doesn’t exist. It is spaceless and timeless. Just being . . . .
6. Finally (rarely, very rarely), *being* itself drops away and uncovers pristine awareness. Nothing of it can be said or described. This appears to be ground, “alaya.” This has been metaphorically described to be like space, pure potential, without instantiations. Some call this the dharmakaya.
(I should imagine that others might provide different views. I welcome them.)
For me, I don’t force things. I don’t look for the next phase. Each arises on its own. If it doesn’t, no matter. It tells me something about myself.
In my process, I observe obsessions, puzzles (paradoxes, curiosities, oddities) and come to understandings about thoughts, emotions, narratives, and instincts. I grok what control, autonomy, independence, free-will, etc. are. But all I CAN say is, what those objects aren’t. To me, they seem to be no thing at all—even through emotions, feelings, instincts, etc. manifest or appear to consciousness. (How strange that is.)
Detachment from the seriousness and concreteness of everyday conventional life started to show up for me a number of years ago, and I formed an intention that my detachment would not turn to indifference. With detachment, emptiness and bliss arose. For reasons I cannot articulate or fully understand, compassion is concomitant with, or identical to, emptiness, . . . somehow. (This seems illogical.)
Shifting intention changed my world. But what a slow process. At first, there was the mountain. With practice, the mountain began to disappear: there is no mountain; everything is empty—narratives, instincts, emotions, conceptualizations. They are just pointers. I’m told that it all comes around full circle back to everyday life. As it does so, I see it as a non-stop melodrama that has no end.
What’s the point? Peace, no fear.
This is a narrative.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^ Yes, and what a Great one!
and too ur last 9999, all which have caused me introspection and a craving for language.
For this, i say;
Thank You!
also,edit; i have a hope for someday we shall share a rope and after a bottle of cab, interrupted by verbiage..
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2015 - 06:33pm PT
|
Said John: "The commentary Lovegasoline has posted is the best meditation writing I've seen on this thread. The analogy cited above and the material on perceptual thresholds makes so much more sense than all the babble about no-thingness, awareness fields, Hilbert spaces, raw awareness, no physical extent, etc."
That's because he wrote about meditation in terms of focusing awareness on some thing or idea (the present moment), and then one's threshold of observing and receiving a data stream from the present (outside world) increases in a measurable way, measurable with a gadget no less. So your discursive mind now has tangible stuff (a line on a wall or fill in the blank) and a concept - a much broader conscious threshold of ingesting things and stuff. Such information is accessible to our rational minds. It makes "sense." But don't think this is the end of the road. What was described is fundamentally what you have beginners do to anchor their attention - anchoring it on a mantra, a sound, a breath, anythng to keep the attention from wandering.
But what happens when you sit on the cushion long enough and exactly as Mike explained, "mind and body drop away," along with all the stuff available past a certain threshold, and there is just an inexplicable presence with no boundary or edge or data? No threshold. That's when no-thingness, awareness fields, raw awareness and no physical extent start to make sense. As mentioned, they will sound like woo till the game shifts on its axis. But not before, IME.
And don't be surprised that Fruity is posting jackass, faux scholorship on the humanities.
JL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
For me, I don’t force things. I don’t look for the next phase. Each arises on its own. If it doesn’t, no matter. It tells me something about myself.
Boy i sure loved forcing things when i was a kid!
That sure tells me something now, about how i was then. Sure be it evolution.
i'm coherent with you on all that, except..
i condone ALL things to the Lord JC. and for that to have happened, i had to take a humungous punt kick to the erroneous scrotum. Causing humility. This by all means is a on-going complication. But through humility, one recognizes one's pursuit isn't as important as the whole's. When i often meditate and pray, on something particular, and then receive no insight. i'll resolve, that it didn't matter.(at that time, anyway) Which causes me to re-think my motives. This inconsequentially mandates me to be more open. Only if i really want to move forward. If i'm not able to be open,i'll stay stagnate. Which BTW shows up in my emotions, by way of outbursts from feelings.
and by "i", i really mean, the world. as "i" see it anyway. Maybe realistically this is just my intentions?
i wish this could have been a better retort to your fabulousness.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
. . . So your discursive mind now has tangible stuff (a line on a wall or fill in the blank) and a concept - a much broader conscious threshold of ingesting things and stuff. . . . What was described is fundamentally what you have beginners do to anchor their attention . . . . . . and there is just an inexplicable presence with no boundary or edge or data? No threshold. That's when no-thingness, awareness fields, raw awareness and no physical extent start to make sense
I confess. My post was a sacrificial lamb, awaiting the pounce of the tiger(s). The replies by MikeL and Largo were anticipated, and they are articulate and descriptive, but with an inevitability and spiritual flavor that one might expect in a Bible study class. And that's OK as long as devotees of sitting don't place themselves on some meta-plane from which the ultimate nature of reality can be glimpsed, denied to those of us who are captives of the material world. I give each of these gentlemen the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The reason is that the basic authority for other religions is faith. The basic authority for Buddhism is a logical process
NaawwO.No. buddhism' logical process is that there is no authority. other than yourself.
What scares you of christianity is that you must devote yourself to authority
-Blueblocr, nuts and nails
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Some river sections must be run exactly while paddling like hell, while others just require a few nudges here and there.
And sometimes, you just say fk it and portage.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2015 - 08:21am PT
|
but with an inevitability and spiritual flavor that one might expect in a Bible study class.
Always struck me as strange and downright snide that a presentation of simple information would be equated to a bible class where faith, true belief, devotion and worship are the touchstones. Whereas what we are saying involves the lack of that and all else your mind can muster up. Exactly what IS it, in terms of content, that has that bible class flair? Not a thing...that much we can all see.
If a person was laying out an equation, and inviting you to not take their word on the matter, but to do the work to find out for yourself, to factor the equation, so to speak, would you clump said equation alongside a bible verse?
And so far as us invested in you "believing" any of this - why would we when beliefs have nothing to do with it, as though we were positing some thing that was true or false.
What Mike and I are presenting is information. You can find much the same thing is any meditation literature once you get past the elementary levels. And yes, we are quite accustomed to people's discursive minds balking at the whole business. But verily, the equation remains the same.
Ultimately there is no-thing out there to grab onto. It is never a popular info stream.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
interesting set of posts by Loveandgasoline which will no doubt reenforce a portion of posters to this thread and fail to persuade another set of posters. I am especially taken by this line:
Arthur C. Clarke is a scientifically oriented science fiction writer, and he has had significant success in predicting future trends. He has said that Buddhism will be the only one of the worlds major religions which will survive in the distant future. The reason is that the basic authority for other religions is faith. The basic authority for Buddhism is a logical process that can be verified by anyone who takes the time to investigate it.
which raises a number of points. First, the assertion of Clarke's "significant success in predicting future trends" is a matter that can be tested, and when that line was written in the 1990s (?) it could hardly have been time enough to make such an evaluation. But mostly, it is an appeal-to-authority argument, ironically supporting an argument based on "logic." We take it as an article of faith that Clarke could predict future trends.
The last line is also a bit of a stretch, the basic authority of Buddhism is a logical process. This is another assertion that presumes, first, that people seeking a philosophical system do so by a logical process, and that somehow the tenets of Buddhism can be objectively established ("verified by anyone who takes time to investigate it" is a statement of objectivity).
The very light reading in the matter of philosophical debate on free will made me aware of an idea which is relatively new to philosophical discussion. Philosophically, the idea of free will can be shown to be incoherent, by which is meant that if free will means doing something completely independent of anything outside of "yourself" you cannot do it. Your very existence depends on something outside of yourself, and your nurturing is also something independent of yourself which at least in part matters to the way you are now.
Given the absolute dependence on your heredity and on the experience of your pre-independent life there can be no claim of "free will" where that term requires independence of all things external to you.
This argument essentially eliminates the possibility of "free will" in the strongest case.
Philosophers know this, but the debate persists. One can ask why. And interestingly, the most startling reason takes from the very reasoning of the argument: that what you are willing to believe, even in the very formal setting of philosophy (for instance) depends on heredity and on your nurturing. Expanding the challenge to "free will" from the moral world to the world of thoughts.
One can legitimately ask if one's belief in, e.g., Buddhism is not a predisposition of the way your mind works rather than any independent, logical verification that it is "true." Similarly for my predisposition to science, or Largo's predisposition to meditation and his belief that it opens us up to a larger, indescribable reality.
Our intellectual predispositions may be merely a part of our genetic inheritance (MikeL won't like that, the machinery of evolution at work). So as with the free will discussions (which are logically resolved, there can be no "free will" as generally defined) one is willing to reject the logical conclusion in favor of a strongly held belief (there must be "free will") in the hopes that some argument will come to the rescue. Strongly held is somewhat misleading, those beliefs are a part of your genetic makeup.
What this implies for this thread is precisely the lament of some, that nothing is really resolving, that we all have retreated to the smug comfort of our intellectual habits insulated from any challenge.
The interesting twist is that we do not do that of our own "free will" but by the compunction of our inherited, literally, beliefs.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill:
It’s comforting to know that you’re being amused and that you have us on a string. I’m pleased to be of service.
Your description is expressive. Could you describe your experience? Without concepts?
Love/gas: . . . super condensed Nāgārjuna
Very funny. Nararjuna was a logician of sorts. Very analytical.
Ed:
I’m not so sure that Buddhism (even other contemplative practices) are logical, either. But the quote is reasonable from my point of view: viz., “verified by anyone who takes time to investigate it.”
Much of what you thought about in your post Love/gas already noted: dependent origination or co-origination. Free will is not anything in particular that many spiritual traditions talk about so very much. It appears to be a keen topic of conversation in the Western world, and that recognition might lead us to make an observation about the Western world as much as it might about what reality is.
Ed, I’m up for genetic inheritance. I just don’t think that genetic inheritance provides answers to all questions about human development. Like I wrote in a post above about causality, if you want to argue for something like evolution, then why should one stop there with that concept? Why not point to the big bang, or the nearest proximal event, or to the Sun, or to anything else that occurred earlier? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Why not choose a solution that captures ALL the variance?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Tvash: And sometimes, you just say fk it and portage.
Try getting outside of your consciousness. Let us know what you find.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Always struck me as strange and downright snide that a presentation of simple information would be equated to a bible class where faith, true belief, devotion and worship are the touchstones. Whereas what we are saying involves the lack of that and all else your mind can muster up.
Neither real nor not real.
To assert any proposition as an absolute truth is to fall into error.
(see above)
Nāgārjuna is a good multiple-choice test for weeding out solipsistic nihilists when you are looking for a plumber.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
the idea of free will can be shown to be incoherent, by which is meant that if free will means doing something completely independent of anything outside of "yourself" you cannot do it.
The classical,absolutist way in which free will has been understood and normally discussed over the centuries probably can be defined in such terms as "completely independent" or "incoherent". But nevertheless it is safe to say that the more relativistic arguments on behalf of free will henceforth strives to establish a decidedly more modest definition of free will-- as that set of motivations or behaviors which cannot be demonstrably shown to contain antecedents. A position based upon a loophole, if you will.
In other words, until a precise series of mapped-out antecedent causes (perhaps like an algorithm) precisely predicts Largo getting up Tuesday morning at 11:21 am, going down to the meditation center for a couple hours of antithetical discursiveness,but on the way, at the last moment, decides to stop by Starbucks to get a strong redeye and check out the ladies. All the while thinking particular thoughts and moving in specific directions.
Furthermore, in order to precisely establish the absolute determinism it seeks, science would have to be constrained to predict every aspect of any given range of behavior in order to firmly rule out the possibility of free will. Free will here being defined as those set of behaviors in which proof of antecedent causes cannot be shown.
Until then the question of free will remains an open one. I suppose the burden of proof will continue to reside equally in both camps.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
^^^^ Well said, WT. What we experience is simply "effective" free will, where the antecedent algorithm cannot be determined. This would seem to be the end of the discussion . . . but it won't be.
JL and Mike, I apologize for being "snide." When I was a kid in rural Alabama I went to vacation bible school and bible study classes and I found the experiences to be very pleasant, non-intimidating, and with very kind and understanding teachers. The interpretations of the good book were discussed in a congenial atmosphere and not crammed down our young throats - much like your dispassionate presentations on no-thingness.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Hey, Ward:
:-)
Well, my friend, . . . if you’re right, then we’re in for a whole mess of trouble. An inability to show (prove) causality in one domain will seep and begin to undermine the use of causality in all domains. We don’t really want that, do we? How could we “be” without causality? What kind of world would that imply or suggest? :-)
“Get to the bottom of anything, and you’ll have gotten to the bottom of everything.” (Jed McKenna)
1. I just got back from a 6-month checkup for cancer. It’s been 4 years now. In one more year I’ll have hit that golden 5th year marker. I go to UW’s Medical Center, so there is an intern from Sudan accompanying my doctor. He’s telling her about the collateral damage from my chemo and radiation as he examines me, and he then tells me it’s an exciting time for cancer research. I tell him what I said to Jgill: “Glad to be of service,” and I mean it (both times). He says that they are starting to recognize and use genetic markers to adjust treatments at individual levels to greatly diminish associated collateral damage. They’ve found a button that has effects. How it works is unclear. It’s an association.
2. When I get home and check in on my students’ messages of need on their final reports, I find a message from the new interim president of UW. She writes to all of us. She says:
“I believe the UW is both boundless and boundary-less: We are not about teaching or research. Our conversations aren’t about access or excellence. We aren’t local or global. We don’t serve just eastern or western Washington. The University of Washington serves the entirety of our state, our country and our world because our DNA is fortified by the ideas and ideals that shape our public purpose.”
I think: “Ho boy, Ed would certainly have something to say about her use of the term ‘DNA.’" That’s not what DNA is . . . or is it?
Objectivity, subjectivity, free will, causality, genetic markers, and the DNA of a university are all metaphors. We’re all getting mileage out of them. What we can’t say is what all those metaphors are referring to. (Whatever it is, is happening to me right now.)
What would you say we’re talking ABOUT?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
where the antecedent algorithm cannot be determined
I guess that if these algorithms are ever formulated it would be a job for
computational biology and computational biomodeling or some such.
It would unquestionably involve "big data"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology
Well, my friend, . . . if you’re right, then we’re in for a whole mess of trouble. An inability to show (prove) causality in one domain will seep and begin to undermine the use of causality in all domains. We don’t really want that, do we? How could we “be” without causality? What kind of world would that imply or suggest? :-)
Hold your horses here MikeL, this whole conundrum could ultimately prove to be merely a bioinformatic technical problem.
“I believe the UW is both boundless and boundary-less: We are not about teaching or research. Our conversations aren’t about access or excellence. We aren’t local or global. We don’t serve just eastern or western Washington. The University of Washington serves the entirety of our state, our country and our world because our DNA is fortified by the ideas and ideals that shape our public purpose.”
Sheez! "Interimness" if I ever saw it.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
We can create a probability distribution that describes Ward's morning routine, like the location of an electron within its shell (which is infinite, I understand). It's a regression and actuarial exercise.
So, there is a slight probability that Ward will be awakened by a nearby black hole rather than black coffee.
Or by the urgings of something with multiple tongues and a life support pack.
In any case, I do believe that we choose our beliefs based on the individual instantiation of our evolution - our unique mix of evolved needs and the equipment our DNA builds to try to satisfy them.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!