|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2021 6:10:51 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you gave up that idea, and the mind became totally quiescent. What would remain? Ideas like "order," "chaos," and "determinism" would all disappear, wouldn't they? What would remain in that state of total silence? The current experience. Sure. If I'm using words, I prefer "what is" or "what's happening" because those phrases point more to the verb-like quality of life when there is only silent awareness. If I were interacting with a Zen individual who would understand a non-verbal reply, I'd respond physically (perhaps dance a little jig ) rather than using words to express the same sort of thing. The organism will continue to function intelligently even if the intellect is quiescent, and no words can adequately describe or capture the isness of "what's happening." If the Buddha had been asked about determinism, he would probably have responded with something like, "Life is neither determined nor not determined; it simply is what it is." If ZM Seung Sahn had been asked that question, he would have responded, "Don't make anything (don't imagine anything); only go straight; don't know (don't activate the intellect)." If Ramana had been asked that question, he might have responded, "Who wants to know?"
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2021 6:16:41 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you gave up that idea, and the mind became totally quiescent. What would remain? Ideas like "order," "chaos," and "determinism" would all disappear, wouldn't they? What would remain in that state of total silence? You don't seem to see that what ouroboros is saying is inclusive in what you are saying, and that's what I don't understand about what you keep trying to point to, why you feel the necessity to negate the relative. IOW, there isn't "determinism" without Wholeness. Wasn't that found in CC? (And the reverse is not true, that's the failing of materialism, and why QM is necessary). What I'm pointing to is beyond everything you wrote here; it's beyond all ideas about what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 26, 2021 6:25:07 GMT -5
Yes, feeling one-with "what is," or THIS, is the immersion you're referring to even if it involves posting on this forum or thinking about pointers to what lies beyond conception. When there's what we might call "deep flow," that kind of flow includes all activities. I only make this distinction because many people experience intermittent flow, including many athletes and mountain climbers. Deep flow can be thought of as synonymous with Ramana's sahaja samadhi and is not intermittent. That state is apparently not possible until the illusion of the SVP is seen through because in the usual sense of the word "flow" there is a "me" having the experience of flow. Deep flow would also be synonymous with what many sages call "the natural state" because it involves no effort. Yes, that's an important distinction. Essentially, intermittent flow is just a matter of right focus, which makes it conditional. Which means that's still the personal perspective. Deep flow, however, does not depend on focus, which makes it unconditional. Which means this belongs to the realm of the impersonal. There's a similar distinction when I talk about alignment. There's a kind of alignment that depends on right focus which is conditional. It does require some effort to get it going and some vigilance to keep it going. Total alignment, however, does not depend on focus and is therefore unconditional. It happens spontaneously and effortlessly. It is the natural state, it therefore just is. Which means we cannot earn it and no one can bestow it on us or take it away from us. All it takes is to recognize it for what it is. But that can't happen from the SVP perspective, because from the SVP perspective, the natural state is unimaginable and therefore an impossibility. Which means as far as the SVP is concerned, it does not exist. Similar to kensho and satori. To the SVP, what cannot be imagined, does not exist. Therefore, from the SVP perspective - kensho, satori, natural state - all unverifiable self-delusional nonsense! HAHA!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2021 7:11:53 GMT -5
You don't seem to see that what ouroboros is saying is inclusive in what you are saying, and that's what I don't understand about what you keep trying to point to, why you feel the necessity to negate the relative. IOW, there isn't "determinism" without Wholeness. Wasn't that found in CC? (And the reverse is not true, that's the failing of materialism, and why QM is necessary). What I'm pointing to is beyond everything you wrote here; it's beyond all ideas about what's going on. I've told you several times recently, directly in reply to me, you can quit pointing.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 26, 2021 7:38:51 GMT -5
What I'm pointing to is beyond everything you wrote here; it's beyond all ideas about what's going on. I've told you several times recently, directly in reply to me, you can quit pointing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2021 8:07:43 GMT -5
There are aspects of the way that appearances appear that are deterministic: you will die, and the Sun will eventually swallow the Earth, for example. And then, there are other aspects of the way that appearances appear that are not deterministic: the roll of a die, the number of people you will have sex with and the amount of taxes you will pay before you die, for instance. But you see, these rules can't define the limitlessness that is "what these appearances appear to". Any definition based on those rules will be sorely, incomplete. Trying to understand - much less define - "reality" with notions such as determinism is like trying to catch the wind with a paper cup. Yes, that is why I limited it to a deterministic aspect. Your "roll of the die" is a very interesting example, and one that I considered when making my comment about quality control. You say it is not a deterministic scenario but I say that is only partially true. Theoretically if you could replicate the exact same circumstances you would get the exact same result. In fact you could build a machine that rolled die within a system that was closed enough, that the machine could roll sixes every time. That is the essence of quality control. But of course 'reality' is such that ultimately, a closed system is a fallacy, and to replicate the exact same circumstances is an impossibility. Certainly not at an atomic level for example, and I don't need to go too much further into that for you to know what I'm pointing to, and where it leads. At a mundane experiential level we can look at the thousands of items on a factory floor and seeing no discernible difference (by way of the quality control) we can know there is some measure of determinism inherent within reality. But the other truth we can certainly know is that, that at least is not the full picture. Thingy is though, the reason the topics on this forum hold much interest for anyone is that reality can be discovered. Reality can be pointed to with various poetry, or approached with succinct statements about what is not true. The realization(s) that "uncover reality" are the lifting of a veil, best described by absence, rather than any sort of gain. Reality is neither deterministic nor random, but seems to appear in various measures as both. These seeming appearances are all ephemeral, all, ultimately empty, and both determinism and randomness are mind-made thoughts about how they appear. Anyone interested in discovering reality has the opportunity to recognize here the limits of intellect, and instead turn attention elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2021 8:09:28 GMT -5
I contend that without a deterministic aspect to 'reality' there could be only chaos. No such thing as order. Set aside thoughts of either order or chaos and find the vast and silent stillness from which either perception emerges.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2021 8:41:18 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you gave up that idea, and the mind became totally quiescent. What would remain? Ideas like "order," "chaos," and "determinism" would all disappear, wouldn't they? What would remain in that state of total silence? You don't seem to see that what ouroboros is saying is inclusive in what you are saying, and that's what I don't understand about what you keep trying to point to, why you feel the necessity to negate the relative. IOW, there isn't "determinism" without Wholeness. Wasn't that found in CC? (And the reverse is not true, that's the failing of materialism, and why QM is necessary). What is pointed to by the existential truth isn't Humpty Dumpty, 'cause ya' can't put all the parts back together again. Pointing to silence isn't denying the relative. In terms of totality, there is no boundary, no retaining wall, no "inclusion" in the sense that the totality is made up of interconnected parts. All limitation, all boundaries, are only apparent, and there is no way to stand outside of infinity and take it in as a whole. There is no "one" in this sense of aggregation as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2021 12:55:32 GMT -5
I contend that without a deterministic aspect to 'reality' there could be only chaos. No such thing as order. Set aside thoughts of either order or chaos and find the vast and silent stillness from which either perception emerges. I would suggest ouroboros merely means if an American drives in London he or she necessarily agrees to drive on the wrong side of the road, or else every American driving will result in a wreck. This ain't exactly rocket science. Of course, it does get more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2021 13:42:56 GMT -5
Set aside thoughts of either order or chaos and find the vast and silent stillness from which either perception emerges. I would suggest ouroboros merely means if an American drives in London he or she necessarily agrees to drive on the wrong side of the road, or else every American driving will result in a wreck. This ain't exactly rocket science. Of course, it does get more complicated. You don't need a theory of determinism to drive on the correct side of the road. Hell, you probly don't even need someone to tell you the rules. Just the steering wheel on the right side and everyone else driving on the left side would likely be hint enough.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 26, 2021 18:28:26 GMT -5
I would suggest ouroboros merely means if an American drives in London he or she necessarily agrees to drive on the wrong side of the road, or else every American driving will result in a wreck. This ain't exactly rocket science. Of course, it does get more complicated. You don't need a theory of determinism to drive on the correct side of the road. Hell, you probly don't even need someone to tell you the rules. Just the steering wheel on the right side and everyone else driving on the left side would likely be hint enough. I spent two years in England as an Air Force cop driving my American patrol car countless hours over a large airbase on the "wrong" side of the road. All was good until I came back to the states and did a u-turn on a near-deserted snowy road in the aftermath of the great blizzard of 78. I was sincerely perplexed and alarmed as to the appearance of some guy coming at us from the opposite direction and being on my side of the road. In the end though, he graciously accepted my profuse and deeply horrified apologies...before, during, and after we spent the better part of an hour digging his car out of a very, very large snow banking.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 27, 2021 8:05:02 GMT -5
You don't need a theory of determinism to drive on the correct side of the road. Hell, you probly don't even need someone to tell you the rules. Just the steering wheel on the right side and everyone else driving on the left side would likely be hint enough. I spent two years in England as an Air Force cop driving my American patrol car countless hours over a large airbase on the "wrong" side of the road. All was good until I came back to the states and did a u-turn on a near-deserted snowy road in the aftermath of the great blizzard of 78. I was sincerely perplexed and alarmed as to the appearance of some guy coming at us from the opposite direction and being on my side of the road. In the end though, he graciously accepted my profuse and deeply horrified apologies...before, during, and after we spent the better part of an hour digging his car out of a very, very large snow banking. I was going to use the example I've used before, we all agree for a stop light red means stop and green means go, predetermined, an agreement. Probably not a good analogy for the order we find in the natural world, from the intelligence which was seen ~{by zd}~ in CC. But I'm glad I changed my analogy...hearing your story.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2021 8:52:47 GMT -5
I spent two years in England as an Air Force cop driving my American patrol car countless hours over a large airbase on the "wrong" side of the road. All was good until I came back to the states and did a u-turn on a near-deserted snowy road in the aftermath of the great blizzard of 78. I was sincerely perplexed and alarmed as to the appearance of some guy coming at us from the opposite direction and being on my side of the road. In the end though, he graciously accepted my profuse and deeply horrified apologies...before, during, and after we spent the better part of an hour digging his car out of a very, very large snow banking. I was going to use the example I've used before, we all agree for a stop light red means stop and green means go, predetermined, an agreement. Probably not a good analogy for the order we find in the natural world, from the intelligence which was seen ~{by zd}~ in CC. But I'm glad I changed my analogy...hearing your story. As a baseline, "determinism", "pre-determined" and "agreement" are all interpretive thoughts about what's happening. We can use mind to minimize the falsity by adding some thoughts that might dislodge the thorns of the others. "Determinism" - especially as it was introduced - is a general philosophical statement about the way that all events happen. These examples you've given of predetermined agreement are situational and specific. Determinism begs the question of the determiner, while in your examples we can trace back the source of who determined the conventions and for what purpose. So, the examples don't really apply to the wider discussion, but what is common to each of these notions is that they are all after-the-fact. The mind picks up it's butcher's blade and describes an event in terms of a car, a driver and a stoplight. Using mind this way is convenient and sometimes even necessary. On the other hand, philosophizing about whether reality is deterministic or not, is never really necessary, of far more limited use, and in terms of anyone interested in the existential truth, is ultimately a misdirection and a case of the mind misusing attention.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2021 8:53:27 GMT -5
You don't need a theory of determinism to drive on the correct side of the road. Hell, you probly don't even need someone to tell you the rules. Just the steering wheel on the right side and everyone else driving on the left side would likely be hint enough. I spent two years in England as an Air Force cop driving my American patrol car countless hours over a large airbase on the "wrong" side of the road. All was good until I came back to the states and did a u-turn on a near-deserted snowy road in the aftermath of the great blizzard of 78. I was sincerely perplexed and alarmed as to the appearance of some guy coming at us from the opposite direction and being on my side of the road. In the end though, he graciously accepted my profuse and deeply horrified apologies...before, during, and after we spent the better part of an hour digging his car out of a very, very large snow banking. Oy! Watch yer ballywickers. Mate.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 27, 2021 18:29:02 GMT -5
I spent two years in England as an Air Force cop driving my American patrol car countless hours over a large airbase on the "wrong" side of the road. All was good until I came back to the states and did a u-turn on a near-deserted snowy road in the aftermath of the great blizzard of 78. I was sincerely perplexed and alarmed as to the appearance of some guy coming at us from the opposite direction and being on my side of the road. In the end though, he graciously accepted my profuse and deeply horrified apologies...before, during, and after we spent the better part of an hour digging his car out of a very, very large snow banking. Oy! Watch yer ballywickers. Mate. Indeed. 😊
|
|