|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 12:43:12 GMT -5
The still mind experiences Life happening.. it doesn't question the existence of the 'stuff' it encounters, it employs the practicality of 'stuff' for the interval of its usefulness, and continues its interaction with existing.. it is that simple.
As I mentioned, to interpret what I've written here as "stuff isn't real" is a mis-conception, and one that you can't cite my words for. What was written was an exposition as to what mankind knows about matter, relevant to the instant discussion because of the natural assumption that "what we are is this stuff" -- "what are we?" is a recurring question in that discussion. In corresponding with seekers the baseline material assumption crops up as a topic of discussion quite often -- ("I just can't get over this idea that I'm my brain"). There is a metaphor here that I'm working on an article to present: dismissing the "science as mind-play" is analogous to attempting to still the mind by force, to attempt to stop thinking by holding one's breath, to attempt to jam a cork in the neck of the bottle of thought. On one hand one need not satisfy the curiosity about objects to turn attention away from thought: listen to ZD before, after and while you listen to me. On the other hand the curiosity about objects is as natural as the assumption of their inherent independent material reality, and while harboring the assumption doesn't necessarily equate to the curiosity, the curiosity is of quite a different hue either absent the assumption or if the assumption is questioned in depth. There is nothing wrong with the assumption of an objective reality, nothing wrong with a philosophy of material realism, and there's equally nothing wrong with questioning it. If the rules of the game of discovery are set as objectivity and empiricism, the double-slit experiment is a major milestone. "observation at slits/scattering pattern, no observation at slits/diffraction pattern" does not mean "there is no stuff", what it means is that the assumption that "we are made of this stuff" is wrong. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics and to venture into the realm of meta-physics and the best that can possibly be said based on the science is perhaps the reformulation: "stuff" and "us" form a tangled-heirarchy: no stuff no observer no observer no stuff, and yet, the observer is not stuff and the stuff is not observer. Material realism as a philosophy still stands but on a modified footing ... one that doesn't interfere with the attempts of the self-inquirer to see past the fallacy that what they are is limited by their body, much less anything else physical. In the past the only way to counter the argument of the material realist was with various appeals to emotion based on spiritual speculation. There is a delicious irony at play here ... if Pope Paul the V'th had had a crystal ball to have shown him Young's experiment he would have thrown Gallelieo a party instead of putting him under house arrest. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 12:52:40 GMT -5
"The menu is not the meal", i think most of us understand the meaning of that.. Yes, sure. This is spirituality 101 stuff. It was in response to your comment about not being able to communicate if we didn't have thoughts. Guess I still have no idea of your point there. What say you to what I was saying - that the approach of 'achieving stillness' is misguided. It is not something to achieve. And that it has nothing to do with a quiet mind. Is it something you're willing to consider? Would you like to explore it[/b]?[/quote] Lead the way.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 13:23:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. The still mind experiences Life happening.. it doesn't question the existence of the 'stuff' it encounters, it employs the practicality of 'stuff' for the interval of its usefulness, and continues its interaction with existing.. it is that simple.
As I mentioned, to interpret what I've written here as "stuff isn't real" is a mis-conception, and one that you can't cite my words for. What was written was an exposition as to what mankind knows about matter, relevant to the instant discussion because of the natural assumption that "what we are is this stuff" -- "what are we?" is a recurring question in that discussion. In corresponding with seekers the baseline material assumption crops up as a topic of discussion quite often -- ("I just can't get over this idea that I'm my brain"). There is a metaphor here that I'm working on an article to present: dismissing the "science as mind-play" is analogous to attempting to still the mind by force, to attempt to stop thinking by holding one's breath, to attempt to jam a cork in the neck of the bottle of thought. On one hand one need not satisfy the curiosity about objects to turn attention away from thought: listen to ZD before, after and while you listen to me. On the other hand the curiosity about objects is as natural as the assumption of their inherent independent material reality, and while harboring the assumption doesn't necessarily equate to the curiosity, the curiosity is of quite a different hue either absent the assumption or if the assumption is questioned in depth. There is nothing wrong with the assumption of an objective reality, nothing wrong with a philosophy of material realism, and there's equally nothing wrong with questioning it. If the rules of the game of discovery are set as objectivity and empiricism, the double-slit experiment is a major milestone. "observation at slits/scattering pattern, no observation at slits/diffraction pattern" does not mean "there is no stuff", what it means is that the assumption that "we are made of this stuff" is wrong. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics and to venture into the realm of meta-physics and the best that can possibly be said based on the science is perhaps the reformulation: "stuff" and "us" form a tangled-heirarchy: no stuff no observer no observer no stuff, and yet, the observer is not stuff and the stuff is not observer. Material realism as a philosophy still stands but on a modified footing ... one that doesn't interfere with the attempts of the self-inquirer to see past the fallacy that what they are is limited by their body, much less anything else physical. In the past the only way to counter the argument of the material realist was with various appeals to emotion based on spiritual speculation. There is a delicious irony at play here ... if Pope Paul the V'th had had a crystal ball to have shown him Young's experiment he would have thrown Gallelieo a party instead of putting him under house arrest. Ahh.. i thought you had been paying attention to my posts.. The double-slit experiment is an if/then conclusion about an observation, it is not a statement of fact.. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics.. physics is a beautiful and elegant exploration of possibility, never resting on 'belief'.. until the variables were accounted for, recently physics was willing to look at the speed of light as not the fastest limit (see MINOS and OPERA projects), and further experimentation is on-going, the point is.. we/physics don't 'stop looking', even when we 'know the answer'.. the double slit experiment is another snapshot of the evolving process of self-discovery.. and, the 'stuff' used in the experiments is still being used.. i'm not 'looking for something', i'm just looking.. i'm not attached to 'stuff', i'm just acknowledging its presence.. i'm not attached to how 'stuff' is described, i'm just acknowledging its presence.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 11, 2013 13:32:46 GMT -5
What say you to what I was saying - that the approach of 'achieving stillness' is misguided. It is not something to achieve. And that it has nothing to do with a quiet mind. Is it something you're willing to consider? Would you like to explore it[/b]?[/quote] Lead the way.. Be well.. [/quote] Well, not to be flip or anything, I thought what I wrote above was an offer to hear how this jibes with your experience and understanding. I'm not sure what I can add. What does it mean to you to "be still"? How is that accomplished? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 13:52:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I mentioned, to interpret what I've written here as "stuff isn't real" is a mis-conception, and one that you can't cite my words for. What was written was an exposition as to what mankind knows about matter, relevant to the instant discussion because of the natural assumption that "what we are is this stuff" -- "what are we?" is a recurring question in that discussion. In corresponding with seekers the baseline material assumption crops up as a topic of discussion quite often -- ("I just can't get over this idea that I'm my brain"). There is a metaphor here that I'm working on an article to present: dismissing the "science as mind-play" is analogous to attempting to still the mind by force, to attempt to stop thinking by holding one's breath, to attempt to jam a cork in the neck of the bottle of thought. On one hand one need not satisfy the curiosity about objects to turn attention away from thought: listen to ZD before, after and while you listen to me. On the other hand the curiosity about objects is as natural as the assumption of their inherent independent material reality, and while harboring the assumption doesn't necessarily equate to the curiosity, the curiosity is of quite a different hue either absent the assumption or if the assumption is questioned in depth. There is nothing wrong with the assumption of an objective reality, nothing wrong with a philosophy of material realism, and there's equally nothing wrong with questioning it. If the rules of the game of discovery are set as objectivity and empiricism, the double-slit experiment is a major milestone. "observation at slits/scattering pattern, no observation at slits/diffraction pattern" does not mean "there is no stuff", what it means is that the assumption that "we are made of this stuff" is wrong. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics and to venture into the realm of meta-physics and the best that can possibly be said based on the science is perhaps the reformulation: "stuff" and "us" form a tangled-heirarchy: no stuff no observer no observer no stuff, and yet, the observer is not stuff and the stuff is not observer. Material realism as a philosophy still stands but on a modified footing ... one that doesn't interfere with the attempts of the self-inquirer to see past the fallacy that what they are is limited by their body, much less anything else physical. In the past the only way to counter the argument of the material realist was with various appeals to emotion based on spiritual speculation. There is a delicious irony at play here ... if Pope Paul the V'th had had a crystal ball to have shown him Young's experiment he would have thrown Gallelieo a party instead of putting him under house arrest. Ahh.. i thought you had been paying attention to my posts.. The double-slit experiment is an if/then conclusion about an observation, it is not a statement of fact.. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics.. physics is a beautiful and elegant exploration of possibility, never resting on 'belief'.. until the variables were accounted for, recently physics was willing to look at the speed of light as not the fastest limit (see MINOS and OPERA projects), and further experimentation is on-going, the point is.. we/physics don't 'stop looking', even when we 'know the answer'.. the double slit experiment is another snapshot of the evolving process of self-discovery.. and, the 'stuff' used in the experiments is still being used.. i'm not 'looking for something', i'm just looking.. i'm not attached to 'stuff', i'm just acknowledging its presence.. i'm not attached to how 'stuff' is described, i'm just acknowledging its presence.. Be well.. No, we don't stop looking, but the perspective and the consensus semantic changes based on the data. Todays "material realism" is quite different from the "material realism" of 90 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 14:43:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Ahh.. i thought you had been paying attention to my posts.. The double-slit experiment is an if/then conclusion about an observation, it is not a statement of fact.. To speak a single word beyond this is to abandon the science of Physics.. physics is a beautiful and elegant exploration of possibility, never resting on 'belief'.. until the variables were accounted for, recently physics was willing to look at the speed of light as not the fastest limit (see MINOS and OPERA projects), and further experimentation is on-going, the point is.. we/physics don't 'stop looking', even when we 'know the answer'.. the double slit experiment is another snapshot of the evolving process of self-discovery.. and, the 'stuff' used in the experiments is still being used.. i'm not 'looking for something', i'm just looking.. i'm not attached to 'stuff', i'm just acknowledging its presence.. i'm not attached to how 'stuff' is described, i'm just acknowledging its presence.. Be well.. No, we don't stop looking, but the perspective and the consensus semantic changes based on the data. Todays "material realism" is quite different from the "material realism" of 90 years ago. The problem is labeling acknowledgment of 'what is', "Material Realism", then isolating it from 'what is', and then claiming 'oneness' as 'the way'.. no, i'm not suggesting you do this, laughter, unless you do.. do you? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 15:12:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. No, we don't stop looking, but the perspective and the consensus semantic changes based on the data. Todays "material realism" is quite different from the "material realism" of 90 years ago. The problem is labeling acknowledgment of 'what is', "Material Realism", then isolating it from 'what is', and then claiming 'oneness' as 'the way'.. no, i'm not suggesting you do this, laughter, unless you do.. do you? Be well.. Is that what you read from the words? There's an applicable personal history but that's vanity unless there's interest. (and from more than you!  ) I'd have to say, that based on your interpretation of what I wrote as "there is no stuff", that it seems to me as if you might. Do you? It all comes back to self-inquiry Tzu'. That's ultimately what science is a form of. Are you your body? If not, do you consider yourself to be a physical aggregate of some sort? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 15:17:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The problem is labeling acknowledgment of 'what is', "Material Realism", then isolating it from 'what is', and then claiming 'oneness' as 'the way'.. no, i'm not suggesting you do this, laughter, unless you do.. do you? Be well.. Is that what you read from the words? There's an applicable personal history but that's vanity unless there's interest. (and from more than you! ) I'd have to say, that based on your interpretation of what I wrote as "there is no stuff", that it seems to me as if you might. Do you? It all comes back to self-inquiry Tzu'. That's ultimately what science is a form of. Are you your body? If not, do you consider yourself to be a physical aggregate of some sort? Aye, this is a well-worn path, now.. yes, i am my body, BUT.. that's not ALL i am.. i am also the conscious energy that animates and IS this 'body', that is the raw material of all that 'is'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 15:32:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. The problem is labeling acknowledgment of 'what is', "Material Realism", then isolating it from 'what is', and then claiming 'oneness' as 'the way'.. no, i'm not suggesting you do this, laughter, unless you do.. do you? Be well.. Is that what you read from the words? There's an applicable personal history but that's vanity unless there's interest. (and from more than you! ) I'd have to say, that based on your interpretation of what I wrote as "there is no stuff", that it seems to me as if you might. Do you? It all comes back to self-inquiry Tzu'. That's ultimately what science is a form of. Are you your body? If not, do you consider yourself to be a physical aggregate of some sort? I just thought of an analogy.. i don't know if any of y'all are whitewater boaters, kayak or canoe, but.. if you've ever been sucked into a whirlpool with intense hydraulics, you are very certain it's real, it's very present.. then, suddenly you're spit out of the whirlpool.. I sense that we are like whirlpools, made of the same water as the river, but unique and very real.. there are rivers that get turned on and off, based on operation of dams, and when the river is 'off' there are small, still and clear pools of water where the river was flowing only an hour before, where whirlpools and rapids created great experiences.. Grab your boats, somewhere there's a river waiting.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 15:40:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Is that what you read from the words? There's an applicable personal history but that's vanity unless there's interest. (and from more than you! ) I'd have to say, that based on your interpretation of what I wrote as "there is no stuff", that it seems to me as if you might. Do you? It all comes back to self-inquiry Tzu'. That's ultimately what science is a form of. Are you your body? If not, do you consider yourself to be a physical aggregate of some sort? Aye, this is a well-worn path, now.. yes, i am my body, BUT.. that's not ALL i am.. i am also the conscious energy that animates and IS this 'body', that is the raw material of all that 'is'.. Be well.. yes the both/and resolution of what I see as a paradox -- my preferred position is to let the paradox lie in it's own conceptual bed and let it dissolve in being, in life, in looking, listening and being still, with quiet mind and vigorous action. it's interesting to note that you have not identified yourself in this statement as a "person" -- not trying to start a fight here Bob, just noticing There is another path, that of neti-neti, in which a seeker takes the position that they cannot answer the question of what they are, that they can only identify what they are not. Many stumble on this path at the question "am I this body? am I this brain?". The rumor has it that there is something called a "unity experience" at the end of this path in which something similar to the "both/and" expression is viewed as an imperfect statement of the ineffable. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 19:42:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Aye, this is a well-worn path, now.. yes, i am my body, BUT.. that's not ALL i am.. i am also the conscious energy that animates and IS this 'body', that is the raw material of all that 'is'.. Be well..
it's interesting to note that you have not identified yourself in this statement as a "person" -- not trying to start a fight here Bob, just noticing
There is another path, that of neti-neti, in which a seeker takes the position that they cannot answer the question of what they are, that they can only identify what they are not. Many stumble on this path at the question "am I this body? am I this brain?". The rumor has it that there is something called a "unity experience" at the end of this path in which something similar to the "both/and" expression is viewed as an imperfect statement of the ineffable.
There's no need to identify myself as a 'person', i 'am' that, too, it is self-evident, you are actually looking for it.. and, isn't it interesting that the 'person' is so real that even if you 'think' you don't see it, you find cause to search for it, to 'notice' that your expectation of its existence is unfulfilled? it's important to notice what's really happening, here.. Be well.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 20:13:31 GMT -5
yes the both/and resolution of what I see as a paradox -- my preferred position is to let the paradox lie in it's own conceptual bed and let it dissolve in being, in life, in looking, listening and being still, with quiet mind and vigorous action.
it's interesting to note that you have not identified yourself in this statement as a "person" -- not trying to start a fight here Bob, just noticing
There is another path, that of neti-neti, in which a seeker takes the position that they cannot answer the question of what they are, that they can only identify what they are not. Many stumble on this path at the question "am I this body? am I this brain?". The rumor has it that there is something called a "unity experience" at the end of this path in which something similar to the "both/and" expression is viewed as an imperfect statement of the ineffable.
There's no need to identify myself as a 'person', i 'am' that, too, it is self-evident, you are actually looking for it.. and, isn't it interesting that the 'person' is so real that even if you 'think' you don't see it, you find cause to search for it, to 'notice' that your expectation of its existence is unfulfilled? it's important to notice what's really happening, here.. Be well.. Be well.. Some perspectives prefer adopting an either/or resolution to the paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 20:19:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's no need to identify myself as a 'person', i 'am' that, too, it is self-evident, you are actually looking for it.. and, isn't it interesting that the 'person' is so real that even if you 'think' you don't see it, you find cause to search for it, to 'notice' that your expectation of its existence is unfulfilled? it's important to notice what's really happening, here.. Be well.. Be well.. Some perspectives prefer adopting an either/or resolution to the paradox. What paradox? i can only report on what i experience.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 20:22:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. Some perspectives prefer adopting an either/or resolution to the paradox. What paradox? i can only report on what i experience.. Be well..  we've covered that ground already |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 11, 2013 20:24:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. What paradox? i can only report on what i experience.. Be well.. we've covered that ground already And you're now tired of it? Just like Musical Chairs. "Bob's it!" ;D oops - I mean "Bob's out!"  |
|
)
we've covered that ground already
