|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 7, 2013 7:18:56 GMT -5
Being around some one like that would make me drink too. When I've been in marshal arts competition there is only body knowledge running the show mind is way to slow to keep up with the chess like strategy the body employs in fact I'm always surprised to see where a hand , foot or elbow ends up. The other day, somebody in the freeway lane driving next to me suddenly moved into my lane. What I noticed is that at the first point of recognition of what was happening, I was already driving in the emergency lane. There was no conscious recognition of a thought to move out of the way, and it seems clear there was no time for one. I'm sure you're remembering that wrong. Probably resulted from a hangover. And those crazy speed readers--surely the direct understanding that occurs when they glance at a page and don't subvocalize or even mentally "read" the words must be a major misunderstanding and incorrect claim on their part. Thoughts must be occurring, and they just don't notice them. One glance, and the whole page of words is understood? Impossible! What? They claim that anyone can learn to do that? Nonsense. They must be arrogant to claim such idiocy. They must be looking at each word, remembering the meaning of each word, studying how each word relates to the adjacent words, analyzing the contextual nuances across the entire page, and then assembling the overall meaning of all the words....and they're doing that really really really fast. I took a course in speed reading once, so I, too, must have been duped. It's not the first time I've been taken in. That crazy teacher insisted that thinking was a hindrance to speed-reading. Idiot! He even said that it shouldn't be called "speed reading" because there is no reading. He said that it should be called "seeing with instant comprehension." I mean, if we didn't read it or think it, how would it be comprehended, and by whom? Because I got pretty good at it, I must have had a really fast mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 7, 2013 7:42:12 GMT -5
Hahaha, who is angry now, Bobby? It's official, the guy simply doesn't get it. I'm so delighted to finally see gramps lose it. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 7, 2013 7:51:35 GMT -5
So when the doctor hits your knee and your leg kicks out that is a thought controlled reaction? That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 9:28:34 GMT -5
So when the doctor hits your knee and your leg kicks out that is a thought controlled reaction? That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. Between Einstein and Serena Williams, be it on clay, grass or concrete, my money's on the athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2013 10:28:27 GMT -5
The other day, somebody in the freeway lane driving next to me suddenly moved into my lane. What I noticed is that at the first point of recognition of what was happening, I was already driving in the emergency lane. There was no conscious recognition of a thought to move out of the way, and it seems clear there was no time for one. I'm sure you're remembering that wrong. Probably resulted from a hangover. And those crazy speed readers--surely the direct understanding that occurs when they glance at a page and don't subvocalize or even mentally "read" the words must be a major misunderstanding and incorrect claim on their part. Thoughts must be occurring, and they just don't notice them. One glance, and the whole page of words is understood? Impossible! What? They claim that anyone can learn to do that? Nonsense. They must be arrogant to claim such idiocy. They must be looking at each word, remembering the meaning of each word, studying how each word relates to the adjacent words, analyzing the contextual nuances across the entire page, and then assembling the overall meaning of all the words....and they're doing that really really really fast. I took a course in speed reading once, so I, too, must have been duped. It's not the first time I've been taken in. That crazy teacher insisted that thinking was a hindrance to speed-reading. Idiot! He even said that it shouldn't be called "speed reading" because there is no reading. He said that it should be called "seeing with instant comprehension." I mean, if we didn't read it or think it, how would it be comprehended, and by whom? Because I got pretty good at it, I must have had a really fast mind. Yes, another good example. The idea that mind/body can function without our continuous mediation has some frightening implications for the person who sees himself as the conscious controller of his life. We come up with various explanations for the more obvious spontaneous activity, calling it habit, instinct and programmed behavior, and we jump in very quickly to declare a choice when it becomes clear what's going to be done without our choice, and then cover our tracks by pretending not to notice our self deception. Most illusions require a great deal of maintenance, but the mind is a remarkable thing and has proven itself to be up to the task. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 10:53:40 GMT -5
If Awareness and Being are verbs, or if they are 'Real' for you, then they are beliefs... Proverb...... When is a belief not a belief? When OHC believes it isn't... TRF, you are creating a lawyer trap here. No matter what I say it isn't what is truly meant. So how do I express something to you that is un-expressable with words? *holds index finger up* And you have yet to acknowledge your own belief that it's all beliefs...... interesting that similarly Tzu does the same thing.... I'm actually not creating or doing anything... I'm pointing out to you that there is nothing but belief, including the belief that there is something that cannot be expressed with words... You believe in something abstract that has no color, no form, no solidity, no attributes, nothingness...which is perfectly okay... I'm pointing out to you that we are actually percievers and not believers... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 11:03:39 GMT -5
The other day, somebody in the freeway lane driving next to me suddenly moved into my lane. What I noticed is that at the first point of recognition of what was happening, I was already driving in the emergency lane. There was no conscious recognition of a thought to move out of the way, and it seems clear there was no time for one. I'm sure you're remembering that wrong. Probably resulted from a hangover. And those crazy speed readers--surely the direct understanding that occurs when they glance at a page and don't subvocalize or even mentally "read" the words must be a major misunderstanding and incorrect claim on their part. Thoughts must be occurring, and they just don't notice them. One glance, and the whole page of words is understood? Impossible! What? They claim that anyone can learn to do that? Nonsense. They must be arrogant to claim such idiocy. They must be looking at each word, remembering the meaning of each word, studying how each word relates to the adjacent words, analyzing the contextual nuances across the entire page, and then assembling the overall meaning of all the words....and they're doing that really really really fast. I took a course in speed reading once, so I, too, must have been duped. It's not the first time I've been taken in. That crazy teacher insisted that thinking was a hindrance to speed-reading. Idiot! He even said that it shouldn't be called "speed reading" because there is no reading. He said that it should be called "seeing with instant comprehension." I mean, if we didn't read it or think it, how would it be comprehended, and by whom? Because I got pretty good at it, I must have had a really fast mind. I get the point. Reading can be like eating, though. If it's just the ingestion of information that is sought, like competitive eating, speed reading is the thing. It's much more enjoyable, IMO, to eat and read slowly, especially if the food/writing is good and nuanced. Sub vocalization, if appreciated, can be very nourishing. We are blessed to have this language. It probably explains why so many who have shifted into this body awareness full time start to utter poetry more than prose. Eating Poetry by Mark Strand Ink runs from the corners of my mouth. There is no happiness like mine. I have been eating poetry. The librarian does not believe what she sees. Her eyes are sad and she walks with her hands in her dress. The poems are gone. The light is dim. The dogs are on the basement stairs and coming up. Their eyeballs roll, their blond legs burn like brush. The poor librarian begins to stamp her feet and weep. She does not understand. When I get on my knees and lick her hand, she screams. I am a new man. I snarl at her and bark. I romp with joy in the bookish dark. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2013 11:05:44 GMT -5
So when the doctor hits your knee and your leg kicks out that is a thought controlled reaction? That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. Obviously, learning is required, (a better example might be learning to play a musical instrument) but the need for learning doesn't imply the need for ongoing thinking in the application of that learning. In fact it's clear that if the musician doesn't let go of the continuous intervention of thought in the application of his learning, he's never going to be a good musician. My brother was new to playing and practiced this same piece of music on the synthesizer nearly every day for several months. (He used headphones, so my sanity remained intact) One day we started talking about his progress (or lack thereof), and I told him he actually learned the piece in the first week, and the rest of the time has been spent trying to cause the music to happen instead of allowing it to happen. (Ten fingers, one thought stream. It was doomed from the start) He's an engineer, so it took a couple weeks to accept that the musician has to disappear effortlessly into the music, but when he got it, it was quite an eye opener. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 11:58:30 GMT -5
That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. Obviously, learning is required, (a better example might be learning to play a musical instrument) but the need for learning doesn't imply the need for ongoing thinking in the application of that learning. In fact it's clear that if the musician doesn't let go of the continuous intervention of thought in the application of his learning, he's never going to be a good musician. My brother was new to playing and practiced this same piece of music on the synthesizer nearly every day for several months. (He used headphones, so my sanity remained intact) One day we started talking about his progress (or lack thereof), and I told him he actually learned the piece in the first week, and the rest of the time has been spent trying to cause the music to happen instead of allowing it to happen. (Ten fingers, one thought stream. It was doomed from the start) He's an engineer, so it took a couple weeks to accept that the musician has to disappear effortlessly into the music, but when he got it, it was quite an eye opener. I can imagine. Even in the learning process, too much thought slows down the learning. What is required is immersion. Not thinking about, but being absorbed into the process. Someone who is able to immerse in the process will learn at a more accelerated rate and be more dynamic. Immersion is very often more about playful exploration than regimented practice. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2013 13:01:27 GMT -5
Obviously, learning is required, (a better example might be learning to play a musical instrument) but the need for learning doesn't imply the need for ongoing thinking in the application of that learning. In fact it's clear that if the musician doesn't let go of the continuous intervention of thought in the application of his learning, he's never going to be a good musician. My brother was new to playing and practiced this same piece of music on the synthesizer nearly every day for several months. (He used headphones, so my sanity remained intact) One day we started talking about his progress (or lack thereof), and I told him he actually learned the piece in the first week, and the rest of the time has been spent trying to cause the music to happen instead of allowing it to happen. (Ten fingers, one thought stream. It was doomed from the start) He's an engineer, so it took a couple weeks to accept that the musician has to disappear effortlessly into the music, but when he got it, it was quite an eye opener. I can imagine. Even in the learning process, too much thought slows down the learning. What is required is immersion. Not thinking about, but being absorbed into the process. Someone who is able to immerse in the process will learn at a more accelerated rate and be more dynamic. Immersion is very often more about playful exploration than regimented practice. Yes, it's a good point. I think that's what is referred to in 'beginners luck'. I notice when I approach something new in a playful, inquisitive way, the results are often surprising, and of course a lot more enjoyable. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 7, 2013 14:19:40 GMT -5
That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. Between Einstein and Serena Williams, be it on clay, grass or concrete, my money's on the athlete. Actually they did tests that imply that athletes in complex sports have above normal intelligence. In running, jumping and these kinds of "stupid" sports they don't need a lot of intelligence. But in soccer or tennis, where intellect is very much required the best players are very intelligent. In contemporary soccer the most intelligent are usually the playmakers on the six (Lampard, Xavi, Gündogan, Pirlo, etc), because on this position athleticism is not enough, you need to read the opponent, adjust to the dynamics, coordinate your own team, you need to have studied all possible situations in training because during the game you just can't make these kinds of decisions based on instinct, they are too complex. In contemporary soccer the difference in athleticism is very small, they are all very fast, strong, they have good stamina, they all have good enough technique, the most important part in todays game is mental discipline and understanding of strategy, spatial awareness, outsmarting the opponent, quickly picking up on the opponent's small weaknesses and figuring out a way to exploit them. These are all functions of actual "cognitive" intelligence, not merely body intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 19:06:32 GMT -5
Between Einstein and Serena Williams, be it on clay, grass or concrete, my money's on the athlete. Actually they did tests that imply that athletes in complex sports have above normal intelligence. In running, jumping and these kinds of "stupid" sports they don't need a lot of intelligence. But in soccer or tennis, where intellect is very much required the best players are very intelligent. In contemporary soccer the most intelligent are usually the playmakers on the six (Lampard, Xavi, Gündogan, Pirlo, etc), because on this position athleticism is not enough, you need to read the opponent, adjust to the dynamics, coordinate your own team, you need to have studied all possible situations in training because during the game you just can't make these kinds of decisions based on instinct, they are too complex. In contemporary soccer the difference in athleticism is very small, they are all very fast, strong, they have good stamina, they all have good enough technique, the most important part in todays game is mental discipline and understanding of strategy, spatial awareness, outsmarting the opponent, quickly picking up on the opponent's small weaknesses and figuring out a way to exploit them. These are all functions of actual "cognitive" intelligence, not merely body intelligence. Don't follow soccer, but as a football lineman, the same challenges applied. On offense, you have to figure out which guy to block -- yeah, I know, that sounds really dumb  ... more complicated than you might think once you're in the stance! On defense, it's a tracking game from the minute the other guys break the huddle -- you can make a big play by paying attention to where the running backs are looking if they don't have their poker faces on. The correlation between intelligence and performance in situations involving strategy and complex tactics is an interesting one but it isn't a measure of the degree of engagement of the thinking mind during execution. Obviously it's about an optimum as the opportunities for analysis in a fast-paced environment are limited on one hand but the capacity to execute based on these elements does implicate mental aptitude. It's enough perhaps to realize that the division of body/mind is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. As I've said before -- self-referential thinking on a steep, especially with ice and/or bumps, is really dangerous! |
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 7, 2013 20:48:10 GMT -5
Actually they did tests that imply that athletes in complex sports have above normal intelligence. In running, jumping and these kinds of "stupid" sports they don't need a lot of intelligence. But in soccer or tennis, where intellect is very much required the best players are very intelligent. In contemporary soccer the most intelligent are usually the playmakers on the six (Lampard, Xavi, Gündogan, Pirlo, etc), because on this position athleticism is not enough, you need to read the opponent, adjust to the dynamics, coordinate your own team, you need to have studied all possible situations in training because during the game you just can't make these kinds of decisions based on instinct, they are too complex. In contemporary soccer the difference in athleticism is very small, they are all very fast, strong, they have good stamina, they all have good enough technique, the most important part in todays game is mental discipline and understanding of strategy, spatial awareness, outsmarting the opponent, quickly picking up on the opponent's small weaknesses and figuring out a way to exploit them. These are all functions of actual "cognitive" intelligence, not merely body intelligence. Don't follow soccer, but as a football lineman, the same challenges applied. On offense, you have to figure out which guy to block -- yeah, I know, that sounds really dumb ... more complicated than you might think once you're in the stance! On defense, it's a tracking game from the minute the other guys break the huddle -- you can make a big play by paying attention to where the running backs are looking if they don't have their poker faces on. The correlation between intelligence and performance in situations involving strategy and complex tactics is an interesting one but it isn't a measure of the degree of engagement of the thinking mind during execution. Obviously it's about an optimum as the opportunities for analysis in a fast-paced environment are limited on one hand but the capacity to execute based on these elements does implicate mental aptitude. It's enough perhaps to realize that the division of body/mind is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. As I've said before -- self-referential thinking on a steep, especially with ice and/or bumps, is really dangerous! I'm the last person to comment on athleticism... because I'm sooooo NOT athletic, and I do not follow soccer or football and never have ... but it has always seemed to me that the best football teams are a combo of brain and brawn, aren't they? The quarterback is smart and calculating. The linebackers don't have to be - they just have to be big and brawny. So I'd say you are both right... but we should be considering the strength of teams as a whole, rather than individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Aug 9, 2013 15:02:49 GMT -5
TRF, you are creating a lawyer trap here. No matter what I say it isn't what is truly meant. So how do I express something to you that is un-expressable with words? *holds index finger up* And you have yet to acknowledge your own belief that it's all beliefs...... interesting that similarly Tzu does the same thing.... I'm actually not creating or doing anything... I'm pointing out to you that there is nothing but belief, including the belief that there is something that cannot be expressed with words... You believe in something abstract that has no color, no form, no solidity, no attributes, nothingness...which is perfectly okay... I'm pointing out to you that we are actually percievers and not believers... Didn't I already agree with you a few posts back that under your definition, yes it's all beliefs? You say we are percievers but yet by your own definition that is a belief and not true either...... |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Aug 9, 2013 15:17:56 GMT -5
So when the doctor hits your knee and your leg kicks out that is a thought controlled reaction? That's just a stupid mechanical reaction. When you play tennis, for example, you always have choices. And where there is a choice there is a decision and it has to be learned and made. Let's say Buddha himself plays tennis for the first time. Let's say against some average player, ranked 500th or so. Let's say Buddha is a great athelete and is able to switch off his thoughts at will. Buddha will still lose, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. And the average player will win despite constantly worrying and doubting himself. ummmm that was my point.....no thinking required. Something happened without thought.... I don't think anyone is arguing that a Buddha without thought will be able to beat someone at tennis without ever playing the sport before..... What's your point with that little "let's say" story? |
|
