The Internal Monologue/Dialogue

[zendancer]

About 45 years ago I was working on a construction site, and started talking to our backhoe operator. Somehow I raised the subject of "mind talk" and the operator said he didn't know what I was talking about. I explained that I was referring to the voice in peoples' heads, and he again told me that he didn't know what I was talking about. I said something like, "Don't you have a voice in your head that comments on what you see or what you think may happen or what has happened in the past?" He claimed that he didn't, but I found that hard to believe. At that point in time I had what felt like an incessant stream of internal commentary that had to do with worries about money, profits or losses, employees, customers, etc.

A year or so later I read in one of the Carlos Castenada books about the Yaqui sorcerer telling Don Juan that it's possible to stop the internal monologue, but when I read that I had no idea whether that was a fictional claim or was actually possible. Eventually my intuitive suspicion that mind talk was making life more stressful than necessary was a major reason that I started meditating, and I eventually discovered how to reduce or even stop mind talk.

I mention these past events because this last week I came across an interesting news article from 2020 about the internal monologue that led to a lot of reading and research. I discovered that, like our backhoe operator from 45 years ago, there are other people who have no internal dialogue at all. I also learned (1) that there are people who cannot see images in their mind--a condition called "aphantasia"--, (2) that there are people who only think in single words rather than sentences, (3) that there are five major types of thinking (subconscious mental processing, verbal thinking, image thinking, emotional or feeling thinking, and sensate thinking) and that most people utilize all five modes of thought, and (4) some people have a dialogue in their heads rather than a monologue and sometimes the dialogue is carried on between two distinctly-different voices. Whereas most people claim that the voice in their heads is their own voice, a few rare people claim that the voices they hear in dialogue are two people other than themselves!

Being curious about this subject I wrote to the researcher who was one of the first psychologists to study this phenomenon, Dr. Russell Hurlburt at the University of Nevada. I sent him a list of questions that pertain to what we sometimes discuss on this forum, and it will be interesting to see if he responds and if so, how he will answer some of those questions. I was curious whether he has encountered people whose talkative minds suddenly went silent for extended periods of time, whether he has encountered people who learned how to slow down or stop the internal monologue/dialogue, whether he is familiar with Self-realization/intuitive insights and the relationship of mind talk to those kinds of insights, and whether he is familiar with deep states of samadhi during which everything disappears and all thoughts cease.

Hurlburt was the guy who came up with the idea of giving people beepers that randomly beeped, at which time the people with the beepers had to write down exactly what their inner experience was at the time the beepers beeped. He has written several books, and I ordered his book "Investigating Pristine Inner Experience" in order to get a better understanding of what he's discovered.

Some of his claims are controversial regarding the percentages of people who fall into certain categories of mind talk or no mind talk, and there are other psychologists who disagree with him about various issues. One psychologist, who has an incessant internal monologue, can't believe that internal silence is possible, and I've encountered many people in my conversations with friends and co-workers during the last two decades who think the same thing. As a result of this recent reading and research, I've started asking everyone I encounter whether they have an internal monologue/dialogue in an effort to determine what percentage of people have no internal monologue/dialogue. So far, I have not encountered one individual who claims NOT to have an internal monologue, so the percentage of people who have no mind talk must be rather low. Oddly enough, I've noticed a certain reluctance of some people to even talk about this issue, and I have no idea why that might be. AAR, I'll post anything new I learn about mind talk and modes of thinking on this thread, and others can add whatever comments they wish that deal with the same subject. For anyone who decides to post on this thread please indicate whether you have an internal monologue or dialogue and anything that others might find interesting about how you think.

As I've noted before, repeatedly shifting attention away from thoughts using meditative activities will, for most people, lead to a reduction in mind talk and even the ability to become internally silent at will. THIS, in the form of particular humans, can do all kinds of unusual things, and becoming relatively silent, psychologically, is only one of them.

[stardustpilgrim]

I have an internal monologue most of the time (most meaning at least 51%). Sometimes it turns into a dialogue, rarely. I've written previously here about my first attempts at silencing the mind, watching my legs while ice skating. This was 1975, it became an absolute necessity, because some of the tiresome thoughts were suicidal thoughts. I probably skated 2 or 3 times a week for 3 hours at a time. This was great relief. I don't recall ~translating~ this to using other means. I had learned TM in 1970, did the initiation thing, then, it costs $10.00 for a student. But I only did that for a year. I never got to the point the mind just becomes silent, so the mantra was always there, a two-syllable word-sound, so that can't be considered a silent mind. I've also written about my first experience of a silent mind, from [Gurdjieff] work methods. Walking across a yard dragging brush, about ten seconds of no-inner-talk. That was cool, and of course when I said to myself, that was so cool, no more silent mind. But that gives incentive to keep it up. Also about that time reading an early work book, Gurdjieff worked with a group of women that was called the women of the rope (from, they were all roped together, figuratively, like mountain climbers). A kind of practice he gave them, he just told them: "Make all quiet inside". But, basically, a silent mind became for me a side effect of practice. I came to look at it this way. Picture a glass cup, as the mind. The glass can be full of all kinds of stuff, thoughts, feelings, images. If you completely fill it with awareness, there is no room for thoughts. The main principle for stopping thoughts, from a work POV, it wastes energy unnecessarily. Everything is centered around saving and transforming energy. Everything.

Plus, Gurdjieff wrote about dying in thirds (I've never written about this here). He said each of the 3 centers is wound up kind of as a spring, the moving-instinctive center, the emotional center and the thinking center. After the spring is wound up, it can unwind slowly or quickly. You can eventually control the unwinding of the spring to a great extend. So Gurdjieff said the moving-instinctive center can die first, in the case, of course the other two centers die also. Relaxation is very important for slowing down the unwinding of the moving-instinctive center. But he said the emotional center can completely unwind, and die, the body still alive, or the thinking center can completely unwind, and die, the body still alive. Today, we call this complete unwinding of the intellectual center, dementia, or Alzheimer's. The body still lives, but with nobody home.

I think the people who will not respond to your questions, are probably afraid of a kind of stigma of mental illness. They probably don't know (almost) everybody talks to themselves in the head, silently, that it's quite ~normal~. So they are probably suspicious of your, your questions.

[zendancer]

Oct 1, 2023 10:39:37 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I have an internal monologue most of the time (most meaning at least 51%). Sometimes it turns into a dialogue, rarely. I've written previously here about my first attempts at silencing the mind, watching my legs while ice skating. This was 1975, it became an absolute necessity, because some of the tiresome thoughts were suicidal thoughts. I probably skated 2 or 3 times a week for 3 hours at a time. This was great relief. I don't recall ~translating~ this to using other means. I had learned TM in 1970, did the initiation thing, then, it costs $10.00 for a student. But I only did that for a year. I never got to the point the mind just becomes silent, so the mantra was always there, a two-syllable word-sound, so that can't be considered a silent mind. I've also written about my first experience of a silent mind, from [Gurdjieff] work methods. Walking across a yard dragging brush, about ten seconds of no-inner-talk. That was cool, and of course when I said to myself, that was so cool, no more silent mind. But that gives incentive to keep it up. Also about that time reading an early work book, Gurdjieff worked with a group of women that was called the women of the rope (from, they were all roped together, figuratively, like mountain climbers). A kind of practice he gave them, he just told them: "Make all quiet inside". But, basically, a silent mind became for me a side effect of practice. I came to look at it this way. Picture a glass cup, as the mind. The glass can be full of all kinds of stuff, thoughts, feelings, images. If you completely fill it with awareness, there is no room for thoughts. The main principle for stopping thoughts, from a work POV, it wastes energy unnecessarily. Everything is centered around saving and transforming energy. Everything. Plus, Gurdjieff wrote about dying in thirds. He said each of the 3 centers is wound up kind of as a spring, the moving-instinctive center, the emotional center and the thinking center. After the spring is wound up, it can unwind slowly or quickly. You can eventually control the unwinding of the spring to a great extend. So Gurdjieff said the moving-instinctive center can die first, in the case, of course the other two centers die also. Relaxation is very important for slowing down the unwinding of the moving-instinctive center. But he said the emotional center can completely unwind, and die, or the thinking center can completely unwind, and die. Today, we call this complete unwinding of the intellectual center, dementia, or Alzheimer's. The body still lives, with nobody home.

I think the people who will not respond to your questions, are probably afraid of a kind of stigma of mental illness. They probably don't know (almost) everybody talks to themselves in the head, silently, that it's quite ~normal~. So they are probably suspicious of your, your questions.

That's also my conclusion. People think of schizophrenics as people who hear voices, and people who I ask about the internal monologue/dialogue become suspicious when I ask them if they hear one or more more voices in their heads. So far, despite suspicion of my motives, all of the people I've asked about this have acknowledged that they experience such a monologue/dialogue.

Another claim by Hurlburt is that left-handed people think differently than right-handed people, which is also rather fascinating.

[laughter]

Oct 1, 2023 9:05:03 GMT -5 zendancer said:

** OP **

My guess as to why some folks might get uncomfortable is that they're uncomfortable with the content of their minds. Can't imagine what I would have made of such a question before I read Tolle. This amateur interest in the dynamics and structure of human mind that we share on this forum is one of many surprises that followed. I had an active disinterest in this prior-to .. engineer/scientist mind focuses outward on the machinery of nature and what we build. And you might be taking that interest for granted and taking them by surprise.

Interesting stuff here zd. Now that I think of it, I can recognize some of this from out in the common culture. The multiple internal dialogs is interesting. Think of folks who do comedic impressions. Also, I took an acting class in college, guy taught the "method": you put yourself in the frame of mind of the character by considering their motivations and circumstance. You try to open yourself up to allowing the character to inhabit you during your performance.

Of course, there's the 20th-century idea of a "split personality", and there's demonic possession. Also, simply people praying to God for guidance. And then, there's channeling, and prophesy. Seems to me, now that I consider what you wrote, that there is a common thread running through all of this: folks making sense of the content and dynamic of their own minds as it arises to them, sometimes in extreme situations.

Most of all though, I reminded of Sekida's idea of "self-mastery". Past the Gateless Gate is a new default mode network. For me, what remains as a baseline is what Sekida called "mood". Self-referential thinking is never mistaken for anything more, than that. Said before: various internally resistive structures of conditioning erode naturally over time in this new default mode. All in their own good time. Sometimes I'll even fall into a spontaneous version of "watch the thinker", long ago having broadened out into simply "observe".  The five-fold categorization will serve as an interesting point of reference for that.

[stardustpilgrim]

Oct 1, 2023 11:03:25 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 1, 2023 10:39:37 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I have an internal monologue most of the time (most meaning at least 51%). Sometimes it turns into a dialogue, rarely. I've written previously here about my first attempts at silencing the mind, watching my legs while ice skating. This was 1975, it became an absolute necessity, because some of the tiresome thoughts were suicidal thoughts. I probably skated 2 or 3 times a week for 3 hours at a time. This was great relief. I don't recall ~translating~ this to using other means. I had learned TM in 1970, did the initiation thing, then, it costs $10.00 for a student. But I only did that for a year. I never got to the point the mind just becomes silent, so the mantra was always there, a two-syllable word-sound, so that can't be considered a silent mind. I've also written about my first experience of a silent mind, from [Gurdjieff] work methods. Walking across a yard dragging brush, about ten seconds of no-inner-talk. That was cool, and of course when I said to myself, that was so cool, no more silent mind. But that gives incentive to keep it up. Also about that time reading an early work book, Gurdjieff worked with a group of women that was called the women of the rope (from, they were all roped together, figuratively, like mountain climbers). A kind of practice he gave them, he just told them: "Make all quiet inside". But, basically, a silent mind became for me a side effect of practice. I came to look at it this way. Picture a glass cup, as the mind. The glass can be full of all kinds of stuff, thoughts, feelings, images. If you completely fill it with awareness, there is no room for thoughts. The main principle for stopping thoughts, from a work POV, it wastes energy unnecessarily. Everything is centered around saving and transforming energy. Everything. Plus, Gurdjieff wrote about dying in thirds. He said each of the 3 centers is wound up kind of as a spring, the moving-instinctive center, the emotional center and the thinking center. After the spring is wound up, it can unwind slowly or quickly. You can eventually control the unwinding of the spring to a great extend. So Gurdjieff said the moving-instinctive center can die first, in the case, of course the other two centers die also. Relaxation is very important for slowing down the unwinding of the moving-instinctive center. But he said the emotional center can completely unwind, and die, or the thinking center can completely unwind, and die. Today, we call this complete unwinding of the intellectual center, dementia, or Alzheimer's. The body still lives, with nobody home.

I think the people who will not respond to your questions, are probably afraid of a kind of stigma of mental illness. They probably don't know (almost) everybody talks to themselves in the head, silently, that it's quite ~normal~. So they are probably suspicious of your, your questions.

That's also my conclusion. People think of schizophrenics as people who hear voices, and people who I ask about the internal monologue/dialogue become suspicious when I ask them if they hear one or more more voices in their heads. So far, despite suspicion of my motives, all of the people I've asked about this have acknowledged that they experience such a monologue/dialogue.

Another claim by Hurlburt is that left-handed people think differently than right-handed people, which is also rather fascinating.

Yes, I seem to recall also reading that. Most left handed people are more-right-brained thinkers. My oldest daughter is left-handed. She is a very creative out-of-the-box thinker, sees the whole. She got her degree in environmental science, so she wouldn't have to sit at a desk. I was sort of ticked off at her because after college she got an offer for a free ride in graduate school, everything paid for. But she said no, I need a break from school. So she joined the Coast Guard. But she got 2 Masters in Science while in the Coast Guard, also free. She is now a manager for hazardous waste for a company that does aircraft maintenance, plus she's the safety manager (that guy retired, they asked her, she said sure, I can do that too, for the right $ ). And she gets big bonus points for pointing out other ways the company can do things more efficiently, that is, save money. And her boss is thus lining up a yearly training trip to Japan for her, selected over others. She's only been with this company about 1 & 1/2 years.

[laughter]

To add some more of the "new age" and unconventional thinking to this thread. The body/mind can be analogized to either an antenna or a lens. This is also related to the purity issue. It's directly related to the existential question by the consideration "what is the source of thoughts?". Even a purely mechanistic approach to this can be interesting, but that pales in comparison to what can be discerned outside of intellect via witnessing. Steve once offered a provocative idea that went something like : "there is no thought that is not ultimately traced to something you are now or once sensed".

Of course, the internal monologue/dialogue issue goes a step further than this into the question of assigning a localized identity to the source of the thoughts. Like ZD, the notion of more than one internal voice was one that seemed foreign to me prior to my slip down the rabbit hole. Now I'm a bit more open minded. Some people feel genuinely guided by the God that they pray to. There are people in this world who are far more aligned that I am who are just trying to make sense of these different internal "voices". Just people trying to understand the world as they perceive it.

Anyway, that particular nuance - the multiple internal dialogues - can be explored, I think, into some insight, with the lens/antenna metaphor.

[stardustpilgrim]

Oct 6, 2023 14:12:00 GMT -5 laughter said:

To add some more of the "new age" and unconventional thinking to this thread. The body/mind can be analogized to either an antenna or a lens. This is also related to the purity issue. It's directly related to the existential question by the consideration "what is the source of thoughts?". Even a purely mechanistic approach to this can be interesting, but that pales in comparison to what can be discerned outside of intellect via witnessing. Steve once offered a provocative idea that went something like : "there is no thought that is not ultimately traced to something you are now or once sensed".

Of course, the internal monologue/dialogue issue goes a step further than this into the question of assigning a localized identity to the source of the thoughts. Like ZD, the notion of more than one internal voice was one that seemed foreign to me prior to my slip down the rabbit hole. Now I'm a bit more open minded. Some people feel genuinely guided by the God that they pray to. There are people in this world who are far more aligned that I am who are just trying to make sense of these different internal "voices". Just people trying to understand the world as they perceive it.

Anyway, that particular nuance - the multiple internal dialogues - can be explored, I think, into some insight, with the lens/antenna metaphor.

Disclaimer, you don't have to read the whole, unless you are bored. I can't tell you exactly where it went wrong, if it went wrong, not saying it went wrong, exactly. It could possibly be only for zazeniac, definitely not inavalan. Pretty-much a nod to ZD, kind of obvious.

Yes, nice. I've been considering a thread, can't put my finger exactly on it, but something like this. "Man is the measure of all things". How can a man escape his own subjectivity? Can man enter-in-to ontology? Or is man always and only at the mercy of epistemology? Kant said we can't know the "thing in itself". The thing always passes through and is filtered via our own subjectivity. 2,000 + years ago they measured by a cubit. This is from your elbow to the tip of your finger. But this is different for everyone. There has to be a standard. In the US I remember, about 7th grade they told us (in math) the S was eventually going on the metric system, so we had better learn metric. Hasn't happened yet. Ya know the pi thingy, it can never be exact, because it is a never ending decimal. You can go into a hardware store and buy a tape measure. It works pretty well, but you still cannot be exact. After all, a tape measure is just a copy of another tape measure, who's to say what the first tape measure was? What if the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday, and he didn't set the tape-measure-making-thingy exactly right. Carpenters rule, measure twice, cut once. I remember hearing carpenters working. You have one guy on the scaffold, he tells the cut guy his measurement, and usually adds, either, leave the line or saw the line. Now his tape measure goes down to 1/16 of an inch, so by say cut or leave the line, he's getting it down to 1/32 of an inch. That's pretty good. But what if the guy on the ground has a Kline tape measure and they guy on the scaffold has DeWalt, where the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday. Then there is necessarily a 1/64 difference. Another thing I learned, carpenters used to caulk their work, and the painters just painted. Somehow it evolved to the painters caulk and paint. This doesn't seem fair, the carpenters can cheat a little, are are not responsible for their slight errors. I once saw a homeowner complain that the painter didn't paint the back of a piece of molding in a corner. The painter asked, How do you even know I didn't paint there?!? The homeowner said, I put a mirror back there to look at it. I kid you not. ...

Oh, my boss had an answer for everything. I was his helper for about 5-6 years when I started working on my own. Time is subjective too. We were late for an appointment once. The contractor said: You said you were going to BE HERE BY LUNCH111!!! Boss just said, "I haven't eaten lunch yet". (Which was true).

Another contractor told him once, I hope I didn't wake you up calling late last night. Boss answered, No, I had to get up to answer the phone, anyway.

Boss was a big sports fan. In discussion I heard him say more than once (different occasions): I don't watch it if it's not on. (Before the internet).

OK, last one. My first week on the job I was working with the other electrician, on a commercial job. We were running half inch conduit, putting it together with couplings. We had already discussed loose, snug and tight, that is, he told me. I asked JN (I had known him since he was about six years old, he's a few years younger than me), how tight? As tight as I can get it? JN said, yes. So, I didn't. And, some seconds later I told JN, we have a new category. Loose, snug, tight, and broke.

I didn't exactly lie, but the last one wasn't the last one. Once were were working at a house. The concrete guys were doing the driveway. They finished, and left, very nice job. First, if there is any hint of rain, they lay plastic over the concrete. They didn't. An unexpected storm came up. The house didn't have gutters yet. Now this wasn't just maybe 12 feet going into a carport. This was a big house, two sides of the house, double garage and entryway down one side and down an adjacent side, about another 35 feet of parking area and turnaround. The rain pouring off the house just pitted the soft concrete under the eve of the house, down at least an inch, you could see the rocks in the concrete. And even not directly under the eves was somewhat ruined, I'd say at least 1,200 sq feet of concrete. I never did find out what they had to do to fix it, didn't go back to that house.

I will put a disclaimer at the beginning.....sorry, got carried away. I'm not sure I even got to my point. I'm not sure I even have a point, yet, since this isn't an OP. Haven't nailed it down yet, still walking around it...

I read a few weeks ago about a new standard for time, something to do with something happening in a certain atom of a certain element, I think, don't remember like...what I are for lunch.

So, to measure means not-to-be-exact.

[laughter]

Oct 6, 2023 15:12:50 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

**

some funny stuff in there pilgrim, thanks fer sharin'. Had to fish out a popsicle stick and some greens from the sink trap the other day. Anyone who has ever done that has direct experience of what you speak in terms of measurements, because once you take it apart (especially a double-sink), it never goes back together without replacing something, and the new parts never fit .. and .. you know the drill, I'm sure! Got lucky this time, only had to leave out one nut and replace one u-joint.

Your example of PI offers an excellent counter-point to your agreement with Steve's theorem: think of the figures that are out past the magnitude of the planck constant. They might represent some imagined theoretical measurement, but one that can never be made. There are several such thought experiments possible. The imagination reflects a very powerful facet of mind unbounded by physical constraints. Not very useful in approaching truth. Though.

[zendancer]

Oct 6, 2023 15:12:50 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Oct 6, 2023 14:12:00 GMT -5 laughter said:

To add some more of the "new age" and unconventional thinking to this thread. The body/mind can be analogized to either an antenna or a lens. This is also related to the purity issue. It's directly related to the existential question by the consideration "what is the source of thoughts?". Even a purely mechanistic approach to this can be interesting, but that pales in comparison to what can be discerned outside of intellect via witnessing. Steve once offered a provocative idea that went something like : "there is no thought that is not ultimately traced to something you are now or once sensed".

Of course, the internal monologue/dialogue issue goes a step further than this into the question of assigning a localized identity to the source of the thoughts. Like ZD, the notion of more than one internal voice was one that seemed foreign to me prior to my slip down the rabbit hole. Now I'm a bit more open minded. Some people feel genuinely guided by the God that they pray to. There are people in this world who are far more aligned that I am who are just trying to make sense of these different internal "voices". Just people trying to understand the world as they perceive it.

Anyway, that particular nuance - the multiple internal dialogues - can be explored, I think, into some insight, with the lens/antenna metaphor.

Disclaimer, you don't have to read the whole, unless you are bored. I can't tell you exactly where it went wrong, if it went wrong, not saying it went wrong, exactly. It could possibly be only for zazeniac, definitely not inavalan. Pretty-much a nod to ZD, kind of obvious.

Yes, nice. I've been considering a thread, can't put my finger exactly on it, but something like this. "Man is the measure of all things". How can a man escape his own subjectivity? Can man enter-in-to ontology? Or is man always and only at the mercy of epistemology? Kant said we can't know the "thing in itself". The thing always passes through and is filtered via our own subjectivity. 2,000 + years ago they measured by a cubit. This is from your elbow to the tip of your finger. But this is different for everyone. There has to be a standard. In the US I remember, about 7th grade they told us (in math) the S was eventually going on the metric system, so we had better learn metric. Hasn't happened yet. Ya know the pi thingy, it can never be exact, because it is a never ending decimal. You can go into a hardware store and buy a tape measure. It works pretty well, but you still cannot be exact. After all, a tape measure is just a copy of another tape measure, who's to say what the first tape measure was? What if the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday, and he didn't set the tape-measure-making-thingy exactly right. Carpenters rule, measure twice, cut once. I remember hearing carpenters working. You have one guy on the scaffold, he tells the cut guy his measurement, and usually adds, either, leave the line or saw the line. Now his tape measure goes down to 1/16 of an inch, so by say cut or leave the line, he's getting it down to 1/32 of an inch. That's pretty good. But what if the guy on the ground has a Kline tape measure and they guy on the scaffold has DeWalt, where the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday. Then there is necessarily a 1/64 difference. Another thing I learned, carpenters used to caulk their work, and the painters just painted. Somehow it evolved to the painters caulk and paint. This doesn't seem fair, the carpenters can cheat a little, are are not responsible for their slight errors. I once saw a homeowner complain that the painter didn't paint the back of a piece of molding in a corner. The painter asked, How do you even know I didn't paint there?!? The homeowner said, I put a mirror back there to look at it. I kid you not. ...

Oh, my boss had an answer for everything. I was his helper for about 5-6 years when I started working on my own. Time is subjective too. We were late for an appointment once. The contractor said: You said you were going to BE HERE BY LUNCH111!!! Boss just said, "I haven't eaten lunch yet". (Which was true).

Another contractor told him once, I hope I didn't wake you up calling late last night. Boss answered, No, I had to get up to answer the phone, anyway.

Boss was a big sports fan. In discussion I heard him say more than once (different occasions): I don't watch it if it's not on TV. (Before the internet).

OK, last one. My first week on the job I was working with the other electrician, on a commercial job. We were running half inch conduit, putting it together with couplings. We had already discussed loose, snug and tight, that is, he told me. I asked JN (I had known him since he was about six years old, he's a few years younger than me), how tight? As tight as I can get it? JN said, yes. So, I didn't. And, some seconds later I told JN, we have a new category. Loose, snug, tight, and broke.

I didn't exactly lie, but the last one wasn't the last one. Once were were working at a house. The concrete guys were doing the driveway. They finished, and left, very nice job. First, if there is any hint of rain, they lay plastic over the concrete. They didn't. An unexpected storm came up. The house didn't have gutters yet. Now this wasn't just maybe 12 feet going into a carport. This was a big house, two sides of the house, double garage and entryway down one side and down an adjacent side, about another 35 feet of parking area and turnaround. The rain pouring off the house just pitted the soft concrete under the eve of the house, down at least an inch, you could see the rocks in the concrete. And even not directly under the eves was somewhat ruined, I'd say at least 1,200 sq feet of concrete. I never did find out what they had to do to fix it, didn't go back to that house.

I will put a disclaimer at the beginning.....sorry, got carried away. I'm not sure I even got to my point. I'm not sure I even have a point, yet, since this isn't an OP. Haven't nailed it down yet, still walking around it...

I read a few weeks ago about a new standard for time, something to do with something happening in a certain atom of a certain element, I think, don't remember like...what I are for lunch.

So, to measure means not-to-be-exact.

Your boss was a funny guy! Loved his responses. He reminds me of Yogi Berra

I would probably argue with Kant about his inability to know "das ding an sich" (the thing in itself). Zen takes a rather dismissive approach toward this kind of intellectualizing, but Kant probably didn't know a thing about Zen. From a Zen POV what you see is what you get, so there's no point in imagining anything deeper than "what is." In this sense, knowing a thing in itself is "gnosis" and knowing it intellectually is "episteme."

[stardustpilgrim]

Oct 6, 2023 16:24:16 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 6, 2023 15:12:50 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Disclaimer, you don't have to read the whole, unless you are bored. I can't tell you exactly where it went wrong, if it went wrong, not saying it went wrong, exactly. It could possibly be only for zazeniac, definitely not inavalan. Pretty-much a nod to ZD, kind of obvious.

Yes, nice. I've been considering a thread, can't put my finger exactly on it, but something like this. "Man is the measure of all things". How can a man escape his own subjectivity? Can man enter-in-to ontology? Or is man always and only at the mercy of epistemology? Kant said we can't know the "thing in itself". The thing always passes through and is filtered via our own subjectivity. 2,000 + years ago they measured by a cubit. This is from your elbow to the tip of your finger. But this is different for everyone. There has to be a standard. In the US I remember, about 7th grade they told us (in math) the S was eventually going on the metric system, so we had better learn metric. Hasn't happened yet. Ya know the pi thingy, it can never be exact, because it is a never ending decimal. You can go into a hardware store and buy a tape measure. It works pretty well, but you still cannot be exact. After all, a tape measure is just a copy of another tape measure, who's to say what the first tape measure was? What if the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday, and he didn't set the tape-measure-making-thingy exactly right. Carpenters rule, measure twice, cut once. I remember hearing carpenters working. You have one guy on the scaffold, he tells the cut guy his measurement, and usually adds, either, leave the line or saw the line. Now his tape measure goes down to 1/16 of an inch, so by say cut or leave the line, he's getting it down to 1/32 of an inch. That's pretty good. But what if the guy on the ground has a Kline tape measure and they guy on the scaffold has DeWalt, where the manufacturing guy had a bad Friday. Then there is necessarily a 1/64 difference. Another thing I learned, carpenters used to caulk their work, and the painters just painted. Somehow it evolved to the painters caulk and paint. This doesn't seem fair, the carpenters can cheat a little, are are not responsible for their slight errors. I once saw a homeowner complain that the painter didn't paint the back of a piece of molding in a corner. The painter asked, How do you even know I didn't paint there?!? The homeowner said, I put a mirror back there to look at it. I kid you not. ...

Oh, my boss had an answer for everything. I was his helper for about 5-6 years when I started working on my own. Time is subjective too. We were late for an appointment once. The contractor said: You said you were going to BE HERE BY LUNCH111!!! Boss just said, "I haven't eaten lunch yet". (Which was true).

Another contractor told him once, I hope I didn't wake you up calling late last night. Boss answered, No, I had to get up to answer the phone, anyway.

Boss was a big sports fan. In discussion I heard him say more than once (different occasions): I don't watch it if it's not on TV. (Before the internet).

OK, last one. My first week on the job I was working with the other electrician, on a commercial job. We were running half inch conduit, putting it together with couplings. We had already discussed loose, snug and tight, that is, he told me. I asked JN (I had known him since he was about six years old, he's a few years younger than me), how tight? As tight as I can get it? JN said, yes. So, I didn't. And, some seconds later I told JN, we have a new category. Loose, snug, tight, and broke.

I didn't exactly lie, but the last one wasn't the last one. Once were were working at a house. The concrete guys were doing the driveway. They finished, and left, very nice job. First, if there is any hint of rain, they lay plastic over the concrete. They didn't. An unexpected storm came up. The house didn't have gutters yet. Now this wasn't just maybe 12 feet going into a carport. This was a big house, two sides of the house, double garage and entryway down one side and down an adjacent side, about another 35 feet of parking area and turnaround. The rain pouring off the house just pitted the soft concrete under the eve of the house, down at least an inch, you could see the rocks in the concrete. And even not directly under the eves was somewhat ruined, I'd say at least 1,200 sq feet of concrete. I never did find out what they had to do to fix it, didn't go back to that house.

I will put a disclaimer at the beginning.....sorry, got carried away. I'm not sure I even got to my point. I'm not sure I even have a point, yet, since this isn't an OP. Haven't nailed it down yet, still walking around it...

I read a few weeks ago about a new standard for time, something to do with something happening in a certain atom of a certain element, I think, don't remember like...what I are for lunch.

So, to measure means not-to-be-exact.

Your boss was a funny guy! Loved his responses. He reminds me of Yogi Berra

I would probably argue with Kant about his inability to know "das ding an sich" (the thing in itself). Zen takes a rather dismissive approach toward this kind of intellectualizing, but Kant probably didn't know a thing about Zen. From a Zen POV what you see is what you get, so there's no point in imagining anything deeper than "what is." In this sense, knowing a thing in itself is "gnosis" and knowing it intellectually is "episteme."

Well, he wasn't really...he was pretty serious. But that made it funnier. He liked to slide stuff past people.

He could wire anything, didn't even look at instructions 95% of the time, transformers of all sorts. I liked to stick with custom homes new construction, which I did 95% of the time. And one contractor most of the time, for years. I disliked most remodeling, disliked service work next.

Oh, have you ever seen 30 roaches at once? I have. We worked for this one realty company, service calls, once went to this very poor neighborhood. When we went into the kitchen, turned on the light, at least 30 roaches scattered. Disgusting. But we had even more disgusting service calls, I'll not go into. Let's just say it involved about 30 indoor cats...

[Deleted]

Why one has to silent their internal dialogue?Is it not the only way we differ from animals? I have my internal dialog going on but that's really not the problem for me. Can't we able to differentiate the mere internal dialog from suffering ? For me, the new expression happens in my mind before I bring that in my coding as an expression. New creation through human happens that way. So Zendancer, internal dialog is not the problem but suffering is.

[laughter]

Oct 6, 2023 19:41:24 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Oct 6, 2023 16:24:16 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Your boss was a funny guy! Loved his responses. He reminds me of Yogi Berra

I would probably argue with Kant about his inability to know "das ding an sich" (the thing in itself). Zen takes a rather dismissive approach toward this kind of intellectualizing, but Kant probably didn't know a thing about Zen. From a Zen POV what you see is what you get, so there's no point in imagining anything deeper than "what is." In this sense, knowing a thing in itself is "gnosis" and knowing it intellectually is "episteme."

Well, he wasn't really...he was pretty serious. But that made it funnier. He liked to slide stuff past people.

He could wire anything, didn't even look at instructions 95% of the time, transformers of all sorts. I liked to stick with custom homes new construction, which I did 95% of the time. And one contractor most of the time, for years. I disliked most remodeling, disliked service work next.

Oh, have you ever seen 30 roaches at once? I have. We worked for this one realty company, service calls, once went to this very poor neighborhood. When we went into the kitchen, turned on the light, at least 30 roaches scattered. Disgusting. But we had even more disgusting service calls, I'll not go into. Let's just say it involved about 30 indoor cats...

The one thing I'd revise about my last response to you on this thread is that what you wrote about the measurements in response to the lens/antenna idea and then my counterpoint about Steve's theorem are relevant to the existential truth in one particular respect: they are a hint that the world is not completely described by conventional mind. This is, in a way, a flip-side to ZD's "what you see is what you get", and then, in another way, it is not. Reefs likes to point out that both the realized and unrealized say "I am the body". It's the same way for "what you see is what you get", but until the inner dialog is clearly seen for what it is - regardless of the form it takes - well, what you see isn't really what you think you see. The philosophers explored this, but it seems to me (from what little I've read of them), they mostly just went in circles around it.

[laughter]

Oct 6, 2023 22:51:57 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Why one has to silent their internal dialogue?Is it not the only way we differ from animals? I have my internal dialog going on but that's really not the problem for me. Can't we able to differentiate the mere internal dialog from suffering ? For me, the new expression happens in my mind before I bring that in my coding as an expression. New creation through human happens that way. So Zendancer, internal dialog is not the problem but suffering is.

Depends on what you mean by "problem". Is that dialog, your dialog? What is the source of it? The dialog can obscure in two different ways, and, if it does, then that's a "problem" for anyone interested in the truth.

Also, for some people - as you already pointed out - the dialog itself can be a major component of their suffering.

[zendancer]

Oct 6, 2023 22:51:57 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Why one has to silent their internal dialogue?Is it not the only way we differ from animals? I have my internal dialog going on but that's really not the problem for me. Can't we able to differentiate the mere internal dialog from suffering ? For me, the new expression happens in my mind before I bring that in my coding as an expression. New creation through human happens that way. So Zendancer, internal dialog is not the problem but suffering is.

It's only a problem if people believe their thoughts. It can also destroy peace of mind if it becomes incessant, a la Eckhart Tolle and others. The negative aspects of mind talk are primarily (1) stress from worry and (2) low self esteem usually generated by judging oneself harshly and accepting other peoples' negative judgements about oneself. The reason many people meditate is to reduce stress and attain some freedom from the mind. The health benefits, alone, are well documented.

[stardustpilgrim]

Oct 7, 2023 5:11:55 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 6, 2023 19:41:24 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Well, he wasn't really...he was pretty serious. But that made it funnier. He liked to slide stuff past people.

He could wire anything, didn't even look at instructions 95% of the time, transformers of all sorts. I liked to stick with custom homes new construction, which I did 95% of the time. And one contractor most of the time, for years. I disliked most remodeling, disliked service work next.

Oh, have you ever seen 30 roaches at once? I have. We worked for this one realty company, service calls, once went to this very poor neighborhood. When we went into the kitchen, turned on the light, at least 30 roaches scattered. Disgusting. But we had even more disgusting service calls, I'll not go into. Let's just say it involved about 30 indoor cats...

The one thing I'd revise about my last response to you on this thread is that what you wrote about the measurements in response to the lens/antenna idea and then my counterpoint about Steve's theorem are relevant to the existential truth in one particular respect: they are a hint that the world is not completely described by conventional mind. This is, in a way, a flip-side to ZD's "what you see is what you get", and then, in another way, it is not. Reefs likes to point out that both the realized and unrealized say "I am the body". It's the same way for "what you see is what you get", but until the inner dialog is clearly seen for what it is - regardless of the form it takes - well, what you see isn't really what you think you see. The philosophers explored this, but it seems to me (from what little I've read of them), they mostly just went in circles around it.

Yes. It all boils down to chapter one Tao Te Ching. Whatever can be put into words is not the Way, necessarily, can't be the living truth, which words can only hint at. (sdp paraphrase) Or, "transmission outside the mind".