|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 1:06:21 GMT -5
In my aforementioned example I offered logical proof positive that arrogance is in error. Some would surely argue that arrogance can still exist, in this error form, among a vast many people. I feel we're conflating the process of living with the interpretation of concepts, categories and labels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 0:53:45 GMT -5
Misuse of a metaphor is just a silly re-purposing of words.  Your first is based on a logical fallacy: in the absence of stupidity, the two different sources of the complexity, and thereby that which is subject either to disposal or as the basis for an elegant model, is easily discerned. The second misses the meaning of referencing the point example: it's not the objects of the genes themselves that embody the power of elegant simplicity, it is the nested dance of self-similarity, found in ever increasing scale (acid, protein, gene, chromosome, cell, organism), based on a language that can be abstracted with three letters that demonstrates the principle. We're barking up two different trees. I was going to say that a gene simply exists. Show me where the elegance of it is, show me where you can touch the elegant simplicity of it. But this is a bit of a cop out, so I'll say this. I proceed ever towards complexity, because the opposite would be proceeding ever towards simplicity. It's a vector that I hold, but I hold it generally, I don't micromanage it. To give an example, affirmation towards seeking the light is affirmation that you're not the light in the first place and is a poor way to proceed, instead if you proceed ever towards darkness then you do what is the natural way of light and shine, and in confronting the darkness you learn more about your lightness, you can't see your lightness directly any more than you can bite your own teeth. So to my original example, I gain awareness of simplicity indirectly, not directly. I gain it after the fact, once the complexity is seen through, understood, not before. Mine isn't the only way in this regard but I hope I've explained a bit better where I'm coming from. What I was attempting to convey with regard to what happens to all the old conceptual structure (it doesn't go away, only the orientation to it changes), is that the economy of thought in the expressions that result from the orientation (which I would rather characterize by the opposite blade metaphor) is actually due to an absence of attachment to any answers, regardless of quality. As Aristotle said it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without believing it. You have to understand the question in order to avoid clinging to it. After all answers to your questions don't form randomly out of thin air. There's a cognitive (conscious or unconscious) process behind it, and the way to avoid attachment to this process isn't to cut ties with it but to the contrary to refine those ties so that they're integrated and aligned with your overall person. The hypnosis is the product of reliance. It's the product of resting the mind on the structures that work, until they fail. Lots of them never will fail, and the hypnosis lasts a lifetime. OK. *shakes laughter's hand in agreement* It's possible to go all the way through to the emptiness of a structure, and I can see how (and have experienced) that as one way to for the spell to break, but I don't think it's always necessary. To support my conclusion, I'd invite you to shift your grip on this from breadth to depth. Surely, it's simply not possible to directly experience the emptiness of any and all possible complex conceptual structure available to us now, is it? Well neither emptiness nor fullness exist absolutely, that is, neither exist independently of the other, so it would indeed be impossible to go to one extreme in diametric opposition to the other extreme. Dare I say this was a most elegant proof.  As far as the gulf between experience and intellect is concerned, what is the taste of an apple? It's a question, and the kind that begs for a certain type of answer.  But really, I would focus not on the answer but on the question itself, which is sort of the same thing anyways. As far as intellectualization for it's own sake, my view is that absent extinction, given the inevitability of time, our understandings will ever increase in complexity, depth, and reach of applicability, but simply by definition, they will be limited as a matter of course by the fact that they are an expression. There is no answer that hasn't produce a dozen questions, and I don't see that as ever changing. Answers don't produce questions, a person produces questions, and with more data it's easier to better refine one's priorities, to better identify the questions that are important to you. As Shunryu Suzuki-Roshi says "If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." There's no pre-set picture that awaits once you put all the answers in their "correct slots", rather the picture is of your own making - answers don't lead to other questions automatically along predefined epistemological channels. I agree that knowledge will always be limited, but to me that's as relevant as pointing out that a proper symbol can't simultaneously convey any and every possible expression. Finally I must say that I'm not strong enough in math to understand how your equation works or any implications of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 0:05:19 GMT -5
My universal translator has failed to fully decode this transmission. Foremost I would take issue with the notion that there's such thing as 'virtue'.  how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue? Well, I can be better than another person. At farming, at math, at bicycling, etc. I can yield greater crops, solve more complex equations, cycle without hands, etc. But to say I'm better without defining any sense to it, that's the metaphorical as well as literal epitome of nonsense. So how I am compared to others is always a function of specific actions, ways or tendencies or otherwise of any specifically defined context. There's no better or worse in a general or universal sense. This is a pretty basic concept so I'm curious why you believe virtue is needed to define humility. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 20:54:34 GMT -5
Rats, my question appears to be unclear. I'm not referring to deliberately humbling another person.. I don't even know how that would work. It's strange that everyone would interpret it as such. Can't wisdom just naturally be humbling? I'd rather be humbling than humbled simply because I'm striving towards greater wisdom, not less, so there's a direction involved. I don't curse the step I'm on since I realize it's a graduated, incremental process, but I'd consider it 'better' to take the next step than not. Just like I'd rather the next step but am great with the one I'm on, I'd rather be humbling but am great with being humbled.
I used the correct bait and set the cage in the correct location but I forgot to close the latch so all the fluff bunnies came in and then went right back out!
Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said: "Is it better to learn humility or to teach humility?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 19:07:23 GMT -5
Humility, very simply is the absence of pride that comes with seeing the emptiness of the notion that anything of virtue that our individuation is the vehicle for is the source of that individuation in any sort of independent sense. My universal translator has failed to fully decode this transmission. Foremost I would take issue with the notion that there's such thing as 'virtue'. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 19:02:38 GMT -5
I was making light of how Steve defined this board as spiritual in nature. You have wasted the precious gift of humor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:59:33 GMT -5
Humility isn't something that someone can do. There is an obvious hubris to trying to to be humble. If you're saying that it's impossible to humble your own self, is it still possible to be humbled by another? In that case I ask again, which side of the instance of humbling is it better to be on? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:51:39 GMT -5
Detail is what leads to complexity: complex structures of thought arise in response to the myriad and uncountable stimuli presented by our senses and the multiple layers of abstractions and the resulting intricate series of interconnection that the mind forms between those abstractions over time. There is elegance in simplicity, particularly in a simple conceptual structure that manages to abstract and represent a breadth and depth of detail in that the detail is derived from the simple expression in action and, possibly in interaction and response to external stimuli. A few examples of these include fractals, the mechanism of our genes, hierarchical top-down tree structures, the abstraction of a connected topography of nodes, the engineers black box … could get to be a long list. Interesting to note that often at the root of such a structure is the artifact of recursion, a.k.a., self-reference. That elegance can lead to the efficiency that you mention, but it leaves one locked into a dependence on an ultimately brittle structure. It is that dependence that is exactly the hypnosis that you are referring to. In order to break the spell, these structures cannot be ignored, for they will continue to beckon the recalcitrant mind like a siren, over and over, and the thinker will drown a thousand deaths. Clarity can sometimes involve deconstructing faulty structures, but not all of these machines are lemons. Some are even battle-hardened time-tested veterans to challenge. In the end, clarity hinges on seeing the very nature of thought, ideation and conceptualization for what they are: empty. Detail can lead to complexity, but stupidity can also lead to complexity, just watch a stupid person try to unravel a knot of power chords behind the computer desk. If your microscope is only powerful enough to make out the rough physical shape of genes then from that perspective genes are elegant in their simplicity only as much as a homogeneous blob is multifaceted. The hypnosis I'm referring to is getting comfortable with a one-dimensional world not because you lack the right answers but because your questions have become so blunted. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer, accept a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky and get a homogeneous blob of infinity in the sky. Perhaps we're almost saying the same thing.. you're saying the hypnosis is a matter of getting so used to the elegance, efficiency and harmony of simplicity that when challenge comes along it's difficult to bend without breaking? I have nothing against symbolism.. stop signs work great if a person knows about them, but getting on the road for the first time and learning about the street signs by trial and error isn't the wisest approach! In order to know how something's empty in a certain context, in order to be able to approach, contextualize or see beyond something in the first place, first you need to know how it isn't empty. In my view the intellectual eventually arks back to fully integrate with the experiential, I'm getting the impression that in your view there's a fundamental gulf between the intellectual and the experiential? It wouldn't be the first time people have had this difference of views. PS - I don't know what you're referring to by the artifact of "recursion". |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:28:06 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you?
Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:19:31 GMT -5
Ah, I thought you meant the suffering was arduous for them, not that their response was poor. Hum, I had almost trapped you.. maybe next time..
|
|
|
|
Dooh!
Oct 2, 2014 0:38:54 GMT -5
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 0:38:54 GMT -5
I thought this was a spirituality forum lol Here ya go, this might be a better fit for most of you that post the most often here: forums.philosophyforums.com/metaphysics-and-epistemology/haha, seriously, read down through the list of topics, its the stuff discussed here everyday.....cept its where it belongs....in a philosophy forum lol this here is a spirituality forum ;-) I did register on PhilosophyForums about a month and a half ago, but recently the forum was hacked and the last two or three months were completely wiped out, my membership and all my posts gone. True story. I would surely chalk if up to a statistical inevitability that something like that is bound to happen sometimes and I would proceed to register an account once again, however if we're to adhere to the spiritual principle of SpiritualTeachers then we should call it a divine coincidence telling me to stick with this fine forum, so we're at an impasse. Truth be told I prefer it here anyways. To the extent your suggestion in this thread was made genuinely, I must regretfully give PhilosophyForums a very poor review as a space for discussing spirituality-tinged metaphysics. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 0:25:03 GMT -5
Some spiritual cultural artifacts -- such as meditation, devotional practice, a supportive community and even opportunities for works of service -- obviously can lead to a better integrated and more wholesome individual with a higher probability of better health than before that integration was the case. All of those things can also yield no results. One of my old correspondents used to hold the opinion that a seeker had to have a healthy ego and a steady, established sense of self before self-inquiry and direct insight could be used to dismantle the false movements of mind and body that obscure the natural state. The theory went that otherwise, fear and shock to the system of someone weakened and unable to cope because of stressors in life would simply send them into a spiral of defensiveness and despair. Some knowledge, once seen, cannot be unseen. However this type of knowledge is neither indigenous to nor its acquisition guaranteed by self-inquiry, direct insight or spiritual cultural artifacts. Consider also the hypothetical of a strongly personally-identified health nut that gets up at 5 AM to run and watches their diet obsessively. Now such a person, despite having zero clue about the fact that his mind is running a meme machine, might just be a very healthy and thereby happy and productive member of society. If part of their life plan includes prayin' to God for forgiveness and confessing their sins, then isn't that state of ignorance potentially the source of less suffering than a dedicated seeker in the same situation? When consciousness is asleep then obviously it's quiet and still, however the blissful ignorance of the womb isn't just different from the peacefulness of enlightenment, it's the exact opposite. Conflict and confusion around exiting the womb, around ever truly and vitally choosing life over death, leads only to death. Mainstream thought is quick to denounce the flame that burns twice as fast, warning that it will last half as long (which I would dispute, but never mind that here!), while it's quick to approve of the flame that barely burns at all. A major focus of the sources reviewed on Shaun's site, which tends to correlate with the discussion here, is on recognizing the false as false ... but if the everyday experience of an individual who is unlikely to ever engage in existential questioning and find the truth via insight includes a spiritual practice that results in greater mind-body integration, then what's the point in even trying to dismantle the dream machine? The alternative to wondering if there's a point to even trying to dismantle the dream machine, the alternative isn't to just go on and accept the dream machine. If there's even a point is a big 'IF', and the point is to solve that 'IF'. It's a good question to ask, which is half the battle already. Personally, I've always been willing to welcome contributions here on the forum that tend along the lines of what might be termed positive and humanistic, but unfortunately, from what I've seen, the types of challenge that those contributors are, as a matter of course, subjected to here, are not challenges that are easily or readily suffered. Despite the 'IF' about the whole thing you seem quick to call the difficulty of the challenges as "unfortunate", as if your mind's already made up! There's nothing to be done about this state of affairs of course, it's just something that came to mind. What an irksome closing remark, but I shall refrain from expletives. Nothing to be done? In the middle of something and nothing lays only more something. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 1, 2014 23:43:45 GMT -5
Q: Oh...
Abraham-Hicks, San Diego 8/21/2010 Thank you Abraham-Hicks for transcribing this tidbit so we're all reminded that you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 1, 2014 23:27:56 GMT -5
Not even a window in that wall.  Art is ANYTHING . . . . . . . ...that you can get away with. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 1, 2014 19:31:13 GMT -5
If decisions don't require an independent doer, then the whole of reality isn't one big action but rather one big homogeneous blob, but this isn't the case. To say that decisions *cannot* exist without an independent doer may be false, however this doesn't mean that saying decisions *can* exist without an independent doer is true. Both are false. Most Zen people would stop there, saying that you can't put anything into words, but that's insane, not the middle way but a tremendous extreme. The problem with both aforementioned statements is that they include various assumed premises which aren't fully coherent and cohesive with one another (or with themselves) in the same sentence beyond a certain level of scrutiny. For example a person can never be totally independent in their doing or in any other sense for that matter, however they can never be totally dependent on anything either, independence doesn't work like that (independence isn't a matter of cutting your ties with reality and floating off the map into sublime dissolution, to the contrary it's a matter of adjusting your ties with reality in a specific and fairly complex way which I won't get into here). Speaking in extremes can be useful to produce linguistic punches or poems, however you can't take thousands of simple, linear sentences, put them into a book and expect the product to be sophisticated, it doesn't work that way.. at some point you have to write not what comes off the tips of your fingers or what moves your heart or what intuitions float into your brain, rather you have to reflect on it and edit the hell out of it over and over (until it's good enough for the sentences before and after it as well as for the sum of what you're trying to say).. this kind of editing is also required in the long-term to be conducted not just on your computer writing but also on your self-dialogue and self-understanding, not as a constant process every second of the day but certainly in regular intervals of contemplation.. without a solid foundation of sophisticated understanding, there's always the risk that zingy one-liners, unsophisticated notions and unsophisticated thought patterns will trap you in a nebulous, bewildered rut masquerading as graceful clarity. The wiser you are the less you think to an extent, however at the same time your thoughts are so much more efficient perhaps for all intents and purposes you think more with less, but the real distinction is that you're less susceptible to become hypnotized by your own thoughts, by the limits of their grammar and syntax, by their practical nature, by their intimate closeness to your person, etc. To say that decisions and actions can happen without a specific doer is a fairly true statement, but don't tattoo it to your arm, don't be hypnotized by it!
|
|
But really, I would focus not on the answer but on the question itself, which is sort of the same thing anyways.
how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue?
