Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15041 - 15060 of total 22382 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:17pm PT
On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

Which brings it right back to Norton's "warm fuzzy feelings," though they may not necessarily be warm or fuzzy, but the gist is the sense of personal satisfaction and ability to smugly spray about the subjective value of one's subjective adventures, whatever their nature. And the world might indeed become a better place if more people did this or that "inner work" of tackling The Deeper Issues™. Or then again maybe not.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:26pm PT
I meant " navel gazing " in the most innocuous terms . I didn't mean to belittle or impugn any given explorations in that regard. It's part of the give and take of this thread.

Now. You asked:

entails no beliefs, faith, or agenda, and is focused on no particular content and is striving after no particular state, what then, do you imagine is happening? In the most specific terms.

I "imagine "all sorts of things could be occurring :
Self-hypnosis
An excursion into altered brain wave states.
A primal reiteration of prey/predator paralysis or some other paleo- neuro state.

All of these things could be naturally occurring without the subject being intentionally striving to bring them about. Humans are animals , animals experience all sorts of things without these experiences necessarily containing a de novo content preconceived by the individual.
For instance, one's sexual drives possess a content and an agenda. Other than breathing the individual does little to fundamentally bring it about. One simply wakes up one day and is horny( so to speak)
So- called subjective states , of whatever provenance, operate in much the same way. They are biologically driven and constituted, and per the criteria offered above, are intuitively much purer as raw experiences than strictly cognitive analysis. This is part of their charm ,pleasure, and allure.
The individual who imagines his rarefied subjective state as not being driven by content and agenda is involved in a little self-foolery.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
Please take a moment to explain what you are saying when you discuss the discursive mind and discursive thinking.
-


Notice Cintune's last post, where he sprays about "the subjective value of one's subjective experience." In other words, to Cintune, what we are talking about is some state, some feeling tone, some imagined sense of higher self, some ephemeral shimmering knowing that shats on everything else. Of course this is all about Cintune, since he's doing it, and can't be bothered to ask any questions. This is a person totally captive to the discursive mind - that's a fact. And his speculations come from that perspective.

To understand how the discursive mind actually works, you have to first learn how to divert your attention away from it till you get enough distance (breaking enmeshment with or breaking awareness fusion) from it to realize you are NOT your discursive mind. Not easy. Nor yet quickly accomplished.

One way to get started with this long and tricky process is to be aware that your awareness is the one thing over which we have some modicum of control. Not much at first. Hardly any, really. Your awarenes will get shainghaied away no matter how hard or intently you decide to try and control it. But so far as you can, simply notice that for a little while anyway, you can seemingly chose where and on what to DIRECT your awareness.

For instance, if you were to look around your immediate surroundings, you will notice a computer screen, a desk, a floor, a rose, books, a picture, a fifth of Old Parr, and a beanstalk. You can consciously decide to move or place your attention on one or the other items just mentioned.

This automatically sets up a perceptual dynamic in which that are basially two aspects at work: The Figure (the thing you are focued on), and the Ground, or everything else in your field or awarenss which is, at this point, part of the background.

While the field, which roughly speaking is EVERYTHING, is discernable, it is not your focus so you are only incidentally or marginally aware of what is going on in that field. The Figure, be it the floor, a book or the fifth of Old Parr, is right in your focus and so it has most of your primary attention.

So far, so good.

Next, notice that your awareness works much like the aperature on a camera. Whatever the Figure is, requires a narrow focus, relative to the background. Your awareness has a kind of depth of field in this regard, and in order for our discursive minds to grock onto some thing, we need to close the aparature so to speak, narrow focusing on some thing at the exclusion of some other thing. While we can multi task, we can really only hold a steady focus on one thing, and we do this by narrowing our focus, presenting to our awareness a figure which is IN focus (narrow), and a Greound, which is out (open) of focus. In other words, to quantify anything, we must narrow the field to the essentials of the experiment, leaving all else "out of focus." We focus on a particular at expense of the whole.

Just play with that for a bit and I'll come back with more later. Try and keep in mind that we are not to the point where you can take issue with or argue with this or that. This is simply how perception and focus operate from the inside, so see where it is true for you with some simple observations. Again, thi shas nothig to do with opinion. Get a feel for Figure and Ground, and narrow and open focus. And how it is hard to hold focus on one thing without trying to quantify or reckon it in some way. Our discursive minds are like hungry dogs ready to pounce on whatever we narrow focus on. Just see how this works in your own process.

JL

jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 07:03pm PT
Good luck and bon voyage to you voyagers of the mind !

Just joking. Sounds like a good technical approach.

;>)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 28, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
In other words, to Cintune, what we are talking about

The "royal we" is always an adorable little tell. Unless of course the whole carpool is huddled around the monitor with you, yukking it up.

...is some state, some feeling tone, some imagined sense of higher self, some ephemeral shimmering knowing that shats on everything else.

Yes, I'm clearly not the only one who gets that impression, but I suppose I do make for an easy target.

Of course this is all about Cintune, since he's doing it, and can't be bothered to ask any questions. This is a person totally captive to the discursive mind - that's a fact. And his speculations come from that perspective.

Yes, that's true. And what Largo writes is all about Largo, who only wants to be asked questions parsed in an particularly submissive manner. This is a person totally captive to the etiquette of the zendo.

Try and keep in mind that we are not to the point where you can take issue with or argue with this or that.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
Ward, take that vid you just posted and focus on the guy claping. Note how the guy is the Figure and everything outside the black border is Ground, as mentioned. Note also that to hold you awareness on the clapper, you have to narrow your focus on the black box. Everything outside the box is "out of focus" so to speak.

We'll walk you through it, kicking and screming and ranting and spraying if need be. And mentioined, the discursive is a very jealous and almost brat like subpersonality at times, evidenced by our responses and snide come backs when it is politely stepped away from. Some people go into a kind of tantrum, even, to the point that they can't take themselves seriously, the whole business seems so foreigh, and their enmeshment with the discursive so rigid.

It is not work that everyone can or should attempt - for many reasons.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:07pm PT
Ward, take that vid you just posted

It 'twas not I who posted said video.

I posted only one video today , that of the great Dick Proenekke and his 30 yr. adventures in the Alaskan outback.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:08pm PT
Ward: I "imagine "all sorts of things could be occurring. . .


Yeah, . . . if imagination only helped. Imagination is not the right tool. There is no tool to be used; no tool will be helpful. It's like trying to box your way out of outer space.

(It's a trick question, silly.)


Hey, Base, thanks for the personal history lesson. Helps. It shouldn't, but a little bit of personal history shifts reality a bit, doesn't it? (How can it do that?)


On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

Jogill, there can only be one reality. WYSIWYG. Much of it is constructed. That doesn't make any of it more or less real. Reality is what you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and think. There's nothing special going on beyond everything. There's no need for conjecture of any sort. Making any conjecture is derelict--real, but not useful and worthy of ignorance.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:12pm PT


The nature of reality.

And Hollywood.

DMT
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:22pm PT
(It's a trick question, silly.)

Yeah I considered that possibility but gave Largo the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, solipsism is about as convincing as a blow-dryer in a tornado.

Imagination is not the right tool. There is no tool to be used; no tool will be helpful.

Nonsense.

Making any conjecture is derelict--real, not useful, worthy of ignorance.

More nonsense. A Salton Sea of negative, nihilistic, nonsense . Lol
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:47pm PT
Nonsense.

Are you saying that you cannot imagine when a conjecture would be useless, or vice versa?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:51pm PT
A Salton Sea of negative, nihilistic, nonsense .

What is negative about saying that a particular thing (any conjecture) is not productive?

What is the lack of meaning behind making a distinction that something is not useful?

What is nonsensical about a claim, any claim for that matter?

(Do you understand what you're writing?)
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
It is not work that everyone can or should attempt - for many reasons

Doc Savage
Doc Savage
Credit: jogill

Doc Savage could handle it!



Mike: . . . fundamental level of reality (singular). . .
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 10:56pm PT
The individual who imagines his rarefied subjective state as not being driven by content and agenda is involved in a little self-foolery.


I missed thisw whopper from Ward, who is amusing if nothing else.

Ward has no doubt derived this opinion by exploring his own "rarifided subjective states." How else would he conclude as much - unless old Ward is simply guessing.

And the idea that observing is not possible without an operative factor of content and an underlying agenda is the testimony of someone who has never done any of the work.

These speculations are in fact so wildly erronous that if one were to try Ward's approach - just tossing stuff out there with no empirical nor yet any experiential data to draw from - we would have to brand him at once a fraud and a fabricator.

This kinds of blindly dismissing sniping is not so much a mere distraction, like a common horse fly, nor even a rude and mindless kind of dross we often associate with the "turd in the punchbowl," but is most likely either a boze soaked rant or a garden variety tactic of self-avoidance. Note that nothing Ward has suggested betrays the slightest hint of introspection or respect or curiosity for his own process, but is simply a kind of mental silly putty.

Now Ward, it's time to take yourself seriously and to buckle down. Every Nehru is rooting for you to quit betting against yourself, to drop the physicalist fundamentalism and to go back to what BASE was asking about and just see if you too can start to grasp how your discursive mind actually works, starting with the simple focus exercise provided for you. Take an honest crack at that, THEN report back to us. Just this once, do a touch of the work BEFORE shooting off that pie hole, lest you keep firing blanks.

Again, we're rooting for you. We're claping for you. Go Ward. Do it.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 28, 2013 - 11:28pm PT
Base said,
Many of the Baptists were huge hypocrites, and everyone knew it.

I'm sure you've heard the saying " do as I say, not as I do!". I think this is a very wise statement. I used this last week when I was coaching my 7yo daughter "Olive", to bat.
To her amazement she went 3 fer 4 and scored 2 runs Wed. night. But we still lost¡
But I was proud as an Eagle!

Mine me while i peer into ur "subjective". Coming from a "Method-ist" up-bringing. You,
( and especially at the age 13), and ALOT of others coming from the other multiple labels of
Christianity. Have been taught to follow a "righteous" set of rules, and if you live by these rules you will surely be righteous. But more exact; prosperous. (just like Joel Olsteen) But these "rules" of good will also work in the secular world also! If ur disciplined in doing "good" you will surely receive good. I would almost stake my left nut on Ed being a really GOOD
person without ever having met him.. But he's NOT very spiritual. ( meaning, understanding
God). All i mean is, most of these "labeled" churches of Christ that were started some 1500 yrs ago were devised by man to "dumb" down the bible to an experienceual level of "by being good, you are good in Gods eyes, and thus acceptable." and if ur bad,God doesn't want you. Now this all goes hand in hand of what Moses and the old testament taught. Seems to me this is a good way to teach my 7yo "righteous" living, but by the time she's 13 shes gonna come to expect something good for being good. And that's not good! It might motivate her self esteem,
But it won't get her into heaven. Theres NOTHING anyone can DO to get to heaven and everlasting life.. Except to pleed for mercy through the blood of Jesus Christ. With that said:
I do believe that everyone that calls on "God" in their life, will be answered. And upon death
They will come face to face with their creator, Jesus. And have the opportunity to repent.
But for those who believe and repent without "seeing" Him,(taking action by faith) The rewards in heaven are GLORIOUS!!! Glory To God! Amen.

Mans experience brings about his Truths.
Gods Truth was brought to us by Jesus' experience.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 29, 2013 - 10:30am PT
Mike: . . . fundamental level of reality (singular). . .

I'm not sure what you mean by this response, John. I think you either see different levels of reality, or you think I'm saying there are different levels of reality.

I doubt there are levels of any sort. I understand that's how we look at reality with disciplines (from string theory or at least quarks to galaxies and universes), but the idea of nested realities (as it were) seems difficult to resolve into One Reality.

So, there are all these things or objects in the universe, right? And the objects or things are nested and linked-up with each other, purportedly creating causes and effects which drives the whole thing from one state to another, right?

A few problems I (and others) have with this picture of reality are the following:

1. What is any object or thing other than the summation its components? There seem to be infinite levels of components (quarks to galaxies). Beyond the convenience of a label that selectively brackets part of a whole, what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

2. Which level is the proper level to refer to or focus upon? The bottom (which seems unfindable), or the top (which also seem unfindable) or somewhere in-between (and how to choose which in-between level)? Which is the fundamental level? Which level provides the greatest amount of intelligence or meaning? Will everything be explained by physics, or do human behaviors best give us human significance, or do the highest summations of change put everything into perspective (at the level of galaxies)? Is the choice of levels simply fiat and unimportant? If it's unimportant, then what are we talking about with all of our talking anyway?

3. As HFCS continues to bring up, where is free will, autonomy, or independence in any of this? There's a zillion parts to the universe, they seem to fit with each other (maybe), so it looks like a great big machine (sort of). I understand that we have a part, but do we have any influence or effect on any of it? Or, how is it that we can't seem to predict everything with great certainty and explanation (the R-square statistic)? Aren't there some things that are so simple that we have them completely and unequivocally figured out for all instances under all conditions?


I can imagine that I'm a population of one here, but the more I look at what I've been told and taught, and the more I look closely at what appears directly in front of me, the less sense with less consistency I make of this "story." Perhaps I'm making too much of small details.

I think, on the other hand, that everyone else is accepting far too much without a reasonable amount of skepticism. On its surface, the typical view of the universe is comforting, and widely shared, and supported culturally, intellectually, and with so many resources. But it presents so many loose ends, conundrums, and paradoxes. Those in turn seem to generate even more projects, more education, and more resource commitments into the same veins of investigations. As a result, the world appears to become more complicated (a form of "progress?"), but we never seem to get to the bottom or to the top of anything? If I cared, I would find that disturbing. These days I find it perversely or ironically interesting.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 29, 2013 - 10:40am PT
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=financial-flimflam

2011, March, p. 77, by Michael Shermer, Scientific American Magazine

Why are experts (along with us nonexperts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than “a dart-throwing chimpanzee.”

There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: “foxes” who know a little about many things do better than “hedgehogs” who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.” High scorers in the study were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”



Read around outside of your area, talk to folks not like you, try something new, try to piece together larger and more inclusive worldviews.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 29, 2013 - 11:02am PT
I doubt there are levels of any sort. I understand that's how we look at reality with disciplines (from string theory or at least quarks to galaxies and universes), but the idea of nested realities (as it were) seems difficult to resolve into One Reality.

Why? They're just an organizational tool, "map is not territory," as the wise like to say.

1. What is any object or thing other than the summation its components? There seem to be infinite levels of components (quarks to galaxies). Beyond the convenience of a label that selectively brackets part of a whole,

Labels, yes.

...what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

Right here is where you tend to lose some of us here, I think.

Which level is the proper level to refer to or focus upon? The bottom (which seems unfindable), or the top (which also seem unfindable) or somewhere in-between (and how to choose which in-between level)? Which is the fundamental level? Which level provides the greatest amount of intelligence or meaning? Will everything be explained by physics, or do human behaviors best give us human significance, or do the highest summations of change put everything into perspective (at the level of galaxies)? Is the choice of levels simply fiat and unimportant? If it's unimportant, then what are we talking about with all of our talking anyway?

Uh... because it's the only way we can, if we're going to at all? Or we could all sit in a circle and hum. That works too, I've heard.

Aren't there some things that are so simple that we have them completely and unequivocally figured out for all instances under all conditions?

I hope so.

I can imagine that I'm a population of one here, but the more I look at what I've been told and taught, and the more I look closely at what appears directly in front of me, the less sense with less consistency I make of this "story." Perhaps I'm making too much of small details.

You are sort of a fan of Derrida, Foucault, et al., right? That would sure put this thread on a different tack, eh?

I think, on the other hand, that everyone else is accepting far too much without a reasonable amount of skepticism. On its surface, the typical view of the universe is comforting, and widely shared, and supported culturally, intellectually, and with so many resources. But it presents so many loose ends, conundrums, and paradoxes. Those in turn seem to generate even more projects, more education, and more resource commitments into the same veins of investigations. As a result, the world appears to become more complicated (a form of "progress?"), but we never seem to get to the bottom or to the top of anything? If I cared, I would find that disturbing. These days I find it perversely or ironically interesting.

It's what keeps things interesting, to the discursively blinkered of course. If we ever could know it all, we would perhaps be as Largo, and enter a whole new (smirk)level(/smirk) of things. Which wouldn't even be things at that point anymore, apparently.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jun 29, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
Levels…

Human construct with no basis in reality.

The whole idea of there being levels is fabrication plain and simple.
Though it does help get us through a viewing of Enter The Dragon


When talking about levels of human existence we may as well be talking to the Mormans and their different levels of heaven and goddom.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 29, 2013 - 12:34pm PT
...what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

Right here is where you tend to lose some of us here, I think.


But you don't nedd to get lost. Getting lost is a result of tryhing to wrangle this concept discursively. And we all can. We can isolate out most any "thing" and grock our discursive mind onto it and derive qualities and aspects and measurements et al. But when you open up the frame, so to speak, and these "things" are no more "figure," then the seeming, stand-alone independence of said thing vanishes. I.E., nothing has an independent existence.

But even the simpliest exercise to get at this has been ran away from like the black plague, saying in pretty clear terms that while a larger understanding of these things is available to one and all, most people's self avoidance reflex is so great they simply can't go there, or as they say, they are "constitutionally incapible" of going the next step.

That, as I have said all along, is not a knock on discursive reasoning, but a bet against yourself.

JL
Messages 15041 - 15060 of total 22382 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews