Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
Thank you for your reply, PSP. That brought clarity to a lengthy conversation that too often lacks that quality. And MikeL's post was very thoughtful and interesting as well.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
Ed: [ to my comment of:] Sure, evolution answers everything, doesn’t it? Nosce te ipsum
I didn’t mean those lines unkindly, Ed. It’s just that the notion of evolution, in this particular instance, might be a bit vague and over-arching.
Delphi oracle? Well, it’s a narrative (and a metaphor) that used people long ago.
Metaphors can be instructive and provide some insight to us. As a young man, I loved my mother dearly, but there was a time when I needed to get away from her. There were all sorts of psychological things going on there with her (and still goes on). She taught me to be a confident, independent young man. She was warm and nurturing to me. It was not easy for me to pull away from her magnetism. But I did, and that was painful for both of us.
When I did, I next found myself coming to terms with my father. We used to battle mightily. I’m sorry to say that I conquered him intellectually, psychologically, and spiritually. I defeated him; I laid him low. It was not until I did that we started to be with each other and express our respect and love for each other. It’s been said that no man comes into his own until he has conquered his father, especially when he has passed.
Metaphors. Narratives. Myths. You may look at those things as play toys of children. I don’t. They tell me much about myself on levels that are not at all physical or material. They give me understanding.
(Props, Gnome.)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 01:13pm PT
|
Ed said.
Evolution is a very powerful concept, and probably the most influential scientific theories, basically providing an explanation of how humans (and everything else) evolved. It also provides a guide to what the future might be, the future of life on the planet.
Ed, I'm sure that you are familiar with the physicist, Lee Smolin. In his book, Life of the Cosmos, he takes the concept of evolution another step and postulates that the fundamental physical constants in the universe -- the mass of an electron, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, etc., are the way they are because the universe itself evolved from ancestral universes. He argues that evolution is one way in which these seemingly arbitrary values could become what they are in our universe. Without something akin to biological evolution, physicists do not have a good explanation of why these constants are what they are.
I read this a couple of times years ago and always thought that it was a concept with merit (from my armchair).
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 01:54pm PT
|
a simple explanation is that brains are all very similar in detail and that the behavior of the brain is the source of mind...
...no need to require some extra-natural property like "intrinsic consciousness" to the explanation.
-----
The problem is that this take is derived on output, what the mind is doing. So quite naturally you are going to look at A) the material source of that doing, and B) attribute that doing/behavior to an external object.
The very reason to study mind as object independent is to gain another perspective from that mode of inquiry that seems to explain "things" as mind independent. Using that mode, is it any wonder that you come to the conclusion that there is "no need to require" a mind at all. It's all a machine, right, or else it is a 'property' of the brain, some bewildering non-object that is extra-natural. Where did you ever get the idea that mind was something un or extra natural?
The advantage of studying mind as object-independent is that you come to see that all "properties" are merely mental or mind content, not mind itself. I trust you could start to get a grasp of this if you ever tried it. Right now, mired in objects and functions and so on, we haven't even gotten past forms.
Look at a comment like MH2 said about subjectivity being internal. "Inside of what?" he asks.
This is awareness fusion to objects. Quite naturally he posits mind as a thing that must exist as a thing inside of some other thing. He's running in a circle.
Give up the object (you can honest-to-God go right back to it, no need to worry) for a brief time and see what is there.
And Ed, I didn't see this:
You said; But more interestingly, you predict that "if you closed your eyes and let the data stream fade to the background" I would have a particular type of experience.
How do you know that?
----
The challenge of getting at this is that I believe (but don't know) that when you use "experience" in this regards, you are talking about some state, or mode of thinking, or angle or insight. In this regard, "experience" is NOT what occurs. What occurs is that all states and
experience itself is acknowledged as content and content is NOT mind.
You are entirely correct in mentioning that by suggesting that if you did the contemplative experiment you likely and predictably would arrive at the same place, but with one crucial wrinkle: The exercise would not predict what you are going to do or the state that you would experience, rather you would gain awareness to what the mind IS, sans-objects, sans states, sans experience. That is, as is stated in countless texts and traditions, the mind, itself, is empty. No qualities, no borders, no efficient cause. Mind (a muddled word to be sure) is not output or some supra-normal or intrinsic thing or quality or some other thing. There are no qualities.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:05pm PT
|
I like the idea of this universe being the result of the evolution of previous universes. It fits well with the idea of multiverses also.
Meanwhile, I'm confused. If Ed is saying that there is no mind without a brain and Largo is saying there is no mind even with a brain, it seems they both agree that the mind is ephemeral, in which case, why does it intrigue us so?
I would argue it is because we identify it with the body and ourselves (ego) regardless of where in the body we think it lies (head versus heart as Werner argues from his tradition). The evolutionists are impressed that such a phenomenon has arisen in a meat brain thanks to known and many more unknown connections. Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose?
To me it makes no sense to go back to a previous prelinguistic state unless it is for hedonistic bliss of a specific type (jihanas, samadhis etc.) just for the sake of enjoyment, or in case it makes us better humans than what we have so far evolved to be. Ed is always emphasizing the social aspects in the evolution of the mind, but so far I don't hear much about that in discussions of the meditator's minds.
My question is at what point do the meditators anticipate going beyond the perfection of their own minds and on to helping other minds? Surely we don't have to wait for full enlightenment to set ourselves on the Boddhisattva path? Or has the secularization of Zen meant that it has also only become an individual pursuit?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:17pm PT
|
DMT. I didn't forget about you, I just had to think about my answer a little bit.
The following are examples of pattern:
I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself. I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself. I will not disrupt class because I can't contain myself.
AGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCAAGGTCAGAGTCATCATCA
Here's an example of recursion.
My point is that the fundamental processes are so fundamental that we might as well be talking about a computer program. There is one word I am missing, however, and I'm glad you made me rethink my position. I was trying to have recursion do double-duty as recursion AND replication. I can see now that this isn't quite right. Replication, definitely introduces something new. So -- Pattern - Recursion - Replication - Random.
By the way, Random introduces competition. Without it, a comprehensive stable state would occur and evolution would grind to a near-halt.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:23pm PT
|
The exercise would not predict what you are going to do or the state that you would experience, rather you would gain awareness to what the mind IS, sans-objects, sans states, sans experience. That is, as is stated in countless texts and traditions, the mind, itself, is empty (JL)
Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose? (Jan)
I agree. Apart from an existential thrill, what earthly purpose would be fulfilled by doing so? Well over 10,000 posts and we still are subject to arguments for getting into a certain mental state and emptying the mind. Just because a meditative chore is difficult is no reason it should be done, unless this is simply an initiation rite into an exclusive fraternity whose defining characteristic is nothing.
When I did, I next found myself coming to terms with my father. We used to battle mightily. I’m sorry to say that I conquered him intellectually, psychologically, and spiritually. I defeated him; I laid him low. It was not until I did that we started to be with each other and express our respect and love for each other (MikeL)
Different families have different dynamics. My father and I became good friends after I reached a certain level of maturity. He wasn't terribly good with children, having lost his father when he was two and raised by older half-brothers and his mother. I can't imagine doing what you describe.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 04:38pm PT
|
Jan said.
The question is to what purpose?
If I may answer for the science-minded. There is no purpose. There is none. We have evolved the way we have evolved, and that's the end of it. Jan, in my opinion, you keep conflating our ultimate origins (metaphysics) with what we "should do" to live in harmony as social animals on this planet (ethics and sociology or socio-biology or something). There is absolutely no reason to believe that there are any a priori rules that exist in the universe about these matters.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
|
he posits mind as a thing that must exist as a thing inside of some other thing
No, I don't.
You said that consciousness is not external, it is internal.
My question about what consciousness is internal to followed simply and naturally from that. You are the one talking about consciousness and mind and you should explain yourself better.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
|
Zen seems to be impressed that one can defy all those years of evolution and get rid of mind once again. The question is to what purpose? (Jan)
Jgill said " I agree. Apart from an existential thrill, what earthly purpose would be fulfilled by doing so? Well over 10,000 posts and we still are subject to arguments for getting into a certain mental state and emptying the mind. Just because a meditative chore is difficult is no reason it should be done, unless this is simply an initiation rite into an exclusive fraternity whose defining characteristic is nothing."
I think I have bitten this emptiness hook five times or so. American Buddhism would do itself a huge favor if they banished the word emptiness which Jgill has latched onto and won't let go like that Corgi. Remember when ever you see the word emptiness on this thread it really means union no differentiation between you and any thing else and when you experience that union to hurt someone else is to hurt yourself which exposes the purpose of why practice meditation/Zen.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:17pm PT
|
American Buddhism would do itself a huge favor if they banished the word emptiness which Jgill has latched onto and won't let go like that Corgi
Sadly, that Corgi is gone, but we have a new tail-wagger that is Corgi/Jack Russel/Fox. She is smarter than me and is patiently teaching me tricks.
It sounds like you and JL focus on different experiential adventures. His approach is far more metaphysical and has ties to a mysterious endeavor called the Meta Mind Project.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:30pm PT
|
Jgill "It sounds like you and JL focus on different experiential adventures. His approach is far more metaphysical and has ties to a mysterious endeavor called the Meta Mind Project."
Not likely; formal practice is basically the same, sitting down and making an effort to get out of the way of what is. A process of repetitive attaching and letting go of conceptual constructions.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 07:10pm PT
|
eyonkee, I wasn't asking the scientists what they think the purpose of it all is as they have long since made clear their answer.
As usual, PSP then stepped in and provided a Zen answer we can understand.
As for my own experience, in my particular schools of meditation (Yogananda's version of Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism), there is such a strong emphasis on compassion and donating any fruits of meditation to the benefit of others, that I am surprised Zen does not seem to mention this. I think it has to do with different methodology. Zen thinks you can get there quickly in one lifetime so just get on with it, you'll know the results soon enough, while Tibetan Buddhism is a slower path taking they feel, more than one life time usually, so they don't wait to demonstrate results as they go along. At least that is the current state of my understanding.
As for how this meshes with evolution, I think in one sense it is anti evolutionary if you think evolution is only about successful reproduction. However, if you think that evolution is also about making progress in other areas than reproducing and making ever more clever technology (ostensibly to enhance survival though that is sometimes doubtful), then you can look at meditation as a method to enhance both mind and brain development. The goal is not just to survive and reproduce like other animals, but to go beyond survival needs and endless aggression in a struggle for resources. Personally, I would call that social and spiritual evolution.
It is as Paul reminds us, what sets humans apart from other animals at least as far as we know most of the time. The more we study animals, the more we see some of them seem (usually those with larger brains and a more developed social life) to have also evolved beyond just survival needs and that some of them also demonstrate altruism from time to time. If our universe is evolved from others, then it seems to me that all life is evolving as well and the direction is away from just survival of one's own small group.
Since humans have rather overdone the reproduction bit to the point that it actually threatens our survival, we can well afford to put some energy into experimenting with mind evolution instead.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 07:50pm PT
|
sitting down and making an effort to get out of the way of what is.
I have no argument with what is. It takes one of those heroic humans Paul tells us about. Eventually, what is changes.
Apology for making fun of your excellent directness, PSP also PP, but it comes out of the Zen no-mold.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 08:55pm PT
|
The modern scientists gross materialists live in their minds.
The intelligent class live as their soul .....
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:13pm PT
|
MH2 says "I have no argument with what is. It takes one of those heroic humans Paul tells us about. Eventually, what is changes."
I often forget that what is changes; I call it wanting a hamburger at the hotdog stand. It is classic delusion.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:47pm PT
|
Not likely; formal practice is basically the same . . .
I think my readings of JL's posts on the subject, going back to Hilbert spaces , Fields of consciousness , no physical extent, quantum fields, empty awareness, etc. make it seem like JL is trying to relate his meditation efforts to metaphysical interpretations of physical reality. You appear to approach the subject in a more practical and altruistic manner.
But I could be wrong.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 07:10am PT
|
About a dollar two-eighty an hour.
DMT: I'm being flippant.
I think the answer tends to be: room and board.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 07:43am PT
|
Jan: My question is at what point do the meditators anticipate going beyond the perfection of their own minds and on to helping other minds? Surely we don't have to wait for full enlightenment to set ourselves on the Boddhisattva path? Or has the secularization of Zen meant that it has also only become an individual pursuit?
In general, one cannot take care of another until one has taken care of him or herself. It’s a bit arrogant to think that one can determine what is appropriate or skillful for another person’s karma. I only know of one living person who claims to be able to do that (Lama Zopa). (It’s how he determines who should be a director in the FPMT.) The Bodhisattva path is one’s own path, and that one is his or her own teacher. There are only a few objectives to the path: (i) wake up, (ii) don’t get distracted. When one sees how things really are, then everything ends up taking care of itself. That includes that object one refers to as “me.”
Jgill: Different families have different dynamics. My father and I became good friends after I reached a certain level of maturity. He wasn't terribly good with children, having lost his father when he was two and raised by older half-brothers and his mother. I can't imagine doing what you describe.
You’ve brought up a conundrum. Can one generalize narratives, stories, myths, models, and theories—or is everything unique? Can nothing be compared or contrasted? Whether it is in the humanities or the hard sciences, we train ourselves to see patterns. (I would say we choose or create them.) “This pattern is more important than that pattern.” The ability for people to see patterns appears to be based upon a recognition that everything appears to be correlated to everything else.
Is an archetypical literary narrative (the classic dynamics between the Great Mother, the Great Patriarch, and their Redeemer Son) expressive of either how people experience life or how they want / don’t want to experience life? “Well, it’s not what I experienced with my father,” says Jgill. Is that the point? Does any generalization need to exactly describe / predict what one experiences in the world? Or, is it enough for a story or theory or pattern to be “truthful” (expressing a truthfulness)?
If an exact truth needs to be had, then no pattern or theory or narrative will ever suffice. No matter what the situation, everything is different in every instance. If “truthfulness” needs be had, then almost any recognized pattern will do just fine—as long as we don’t take them all that seriously or expect them to be completely accurate.
We come up with these things (theories, narratives, etc.) so that we can talk with one another (and argue about the exactness of our understanding). Isn’t this what Ed and Largo are going back and forth about? In a conventional sense, we can point to referents and say that we see and understand the same things. In an ultimate sense, we can’t.
There is a middle ground, however (“the excluded middle”), that avoids the conundrum. But that tends to put people into a position most people here don’t want to be in. Those in that condition they tend to call solipsists and nihilists, and suggest it is obviously absurd to take that middle ground. They say those of the middle ground are not compassionate, they don’t care about others or things that happen in the world. (They would be right, and they would be not right.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 08:00am PT
|
... if you think that evolution is also about making progress...
it is not about making progress
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!