Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16661 - 16680 of total 22697 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:50am PT
if you're going to say that things like talent is neurons jumping from one axion to another


Uffish thought, there, MikeL. Who said that? Lewis Carroll? Talent undoubtedly has something to do with neurons in the human, if only in the expression of it, but not because neurons jump from one axion to another. It is better to stay away from such statements as, "talent is..." The world is a complex and interconnected place and an individual human consciousness is not likely to pin it down so neatly.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:53am PT
Is that a dogmatic statement MikeL? A do or die statement? A heaven or not statement. In my view you have according to your own words entered morality and ritual - and chaos is at your heels...

Metaphors, all. Words are so far away from conceptual definitions in practice or in-use, and concepts are so far away from reality . . . it's a wonder at all that we can communicate. "All communication is mis-communication" (Derrida). Also, see Shannon-Weaver's model of communication below. At best we point. (See also, Lakoff & Johnson's, "Metaphors We Live By")

Shannon-Weaver's Mathematical Model of Communication
Shannon-Weaver's Mathematical Model of Communication
Credit: MikeL

It's all the more difficult when we're attempting to talk about something as ephemeral as spirit. Reading the Tao the Ching or the Bible is not something that can be done literally. It's the whole pointing-at-the-moon thing: don't look at my finger; look at what it's pointing to.



MH2: I'm just pointing. The more definitive a person's communication is, the less that can be said and communicated easily (e.g., here). Consider it a stupid writing error.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:07am PT
If I follow your reasoning MikeL, then there isn't any taoistic statements/rules/dogma, there isn't any right or good statements/rules/dogma, there isn't any moral statements, there isn't any ritual statements. There are only metaphors. Taoism, goodness, morality, ritual are just so in action, when acted out.

If I say "If that evil bastard doesn't get his ass out of here, he should be killed", it's only a metaphor?

And if I instead of "kill him", say "give him hell" - is it more according to your rule of a pointing non-precision metaphor?

And is also your rule of a "pointing non-precision metaphor" not a rule, but a metaphor?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
For instance, JL, has it ever occurred to you that you are wrong?


In what sense?

If you notice, I have made a big point in saying if you want to encounter what it is we are talking about, you have to take certain steps your very own self to find out. You have to actually delve into the non-discursive and encounter the crux of it. I contend that I am not wrong about that aspect of the work. You actualy have to go there to "know."

Invitations to go there have been met with spectacular resistance on this thread, with justifications galore per remaining on the purly discursive side of the fence. I once thought this was owing to terror, but have come to realize this is mainly the habituated ways of us old folks, who simply can't muster the sac, the wonder and the curiosity to move, even for five minutes, out of the old comfort zone.

This is, IMO, tryly "old dog" behavior, people waiting for some convincing discursive argument to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER but to think about it once more.

If even one person on this thread would take the small step instead of complaining about it, then we could start discussinig something besides arguing like two bald men over a comb. As is, the Marlows of this thread continually carp about me not providing discursive facts and figures about the hyper-discursive realms, while at the same time accusing me of circlinig the same wagon.

As I mentioned earlier, we can start to see the limitations of the discursive by a simple investigation of how awareness and focus actually work in our consciousness - a simple empiracle investigation that everyone can understand and vouchsafe for themselves - but that investigation demands first person work, and anything but third person objectifying is the "boogy man" to most people on this thread. Like children afraid of the dark, and refute this simple fact with high flow rherotic, but notice thy never, under any cirmcumstances, move toward the shadows. Ever. They simply cannot go there - and that is what all the resistance and rhetoric is all about - making sure you never shift your perspective, even for five minutes.

Old dogs, old ways. Try and roust the old fellow and hear the growl or all the fancy talk . . . but movement or expansion you simply will not see.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
Marlow:

We're getting technical.

There are "live metaphors" and "dead metaphors." The live ones we have to think about what they mean, and we'll struggle over those considerably. The dead ones, not so much. When I say, "do you see what I mean?", I'm not asking you what your eyes are showing you. That's a dead metaphor, and our language is full of them. Even the word "getting" in my first paragraph in front of this one is a dead metaphor. (We all "get" "get.")

Some of the words that you've written (even if not metaphors) are unclear to me exactly what you mean by them (even assuming that you knew EXACTLY what you meant when you wrote them).

Perhaps you've seen this model from a number of different disciplines.

semiotic model
semiotic model
Credit: MikeL

What the "thing" or "object" (referent) that you're pointing to with a symbol--we may both see the referent differently. (Why? See Shannon-Weaver's model, once again.) Understanding becomes impossible IF one sees "referent" as not referent'able (as I argue). I argue that one cannot find any referent in reality, because reality is infinitely great: can't get a handle on Reality. If reality is uncontextualizable, unfindable, indeterminate, undefinable, without beginning or end, blah blah blah, then any real communication about it must fail--and miserably. What is the referent? Your consciousness, your experience, your subjectivity.

Am I arguing for a rule? No. I'm simply observing / arguing that you can't come up with definitive answers about anything. If you can, please do so. This is not a theory, principle, or rule. It's simply a set of observations. (Yeah they look pretty consistent.)

Perhaps this makes the point more simply.

Rene Magritte's "The Treachery of Images"
Rene Magritte's "The Treachery of Images"
Credit: MikeL

Magritte's image (in French, the words say "This is not a pipe") suggests (once again) that no map is a territory. Magritte's painting of a pipe is not a pipe. It's a representation of a pipe. At first we are a bit shocked by what Magritte's painting is telling us, but that just shows us just how much we take conventional, consensus-based reality for granted. We just aren't looking closely or carefully or systematically.

"If that evil bastard doesn't get his ass out of here, he should be killed" is only a metaphor?

Don't know. It could be. And it could not be. We'd have to talk about it. That's what communication is supposed to be all about: talking, back-and-forthing, dialogue, feedback, zeroing in, ranging, etc. Since when did anyone or any statement clear anything up once and for all?

And is also your rule of a "pointing non-precision metaphor" not a rule, but a metaphor?

Yup. Could be. Look, rules are essentially useless (although they can be used productively--but they should not be taken concretely or seriously). Reality won't fit.

Rules tend to produce contradictions, paradoxes, and dilemmas. All of those characterizations that we make about reality are indications of what reality really is.

WHAT THE HELL IS IT?

Can't say. But you can experience and know it.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
Largo

To speak for myself and for no other marlows:

 I have never doubted that you will have another experience during meditation than you have during discovery of things hidden in the external world.
 I have never doubted that you can let impulses from the external world stream through your consciousness without anything being stuck in your awareness.
 The map will never be the landscape.
 The subjective experience will never be the same as the perfect description of the subjective experience.

Largo, you are closing open doors all the time. It is as if you imagine having something valuable that you want to close other people off from. And at the same time you insist on the value it will have for them to find their hidden inner land. To use freudian terms - maybe you're stuck in the anal phase? You, the greatest of ST pretenders. ;o)
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
What does Shannon-Weaver have to do with what you are saying, MikeL? The theory concerns information, e.g. bits, not meanings. We all think we know more than we actually do, but I see signs that what you think you know confuses you rather than informs you. You and JL routinely misrepresent and misinterpret math and physics.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:21pm PT
MikeL

To start where we started:

If I understand you right, you are now saying that your words: "If you want to accord with the Tao, just do your job and let go." ". . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - are just a starting point for a dialogue.

Question: Are you willing to change your original words as a consequence of something that turns up in the dialogue? Or: Are your words/starting point a belief that you will not change?

Many things can be "discovered" with Tarot cards as a starting point, but many things can also be planted...
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Marlow, your English is either loopy or your logic is screwy.

Let me put it to you simply.

I don't have anythig to offer. At all. But you have at your disposal a vast world totally unknown to you. It has NOTHIGN to do with beliefs, fuzzy feelings, faith, juju, magic, or measurements.

You cannot get there by thinking about it or loopong around saying I am closing all doors on you etc. Nor yet by evoking long-ago junked Freudian concepts. Psychology marched past Sigmond in the 1950s.

The "door" of riches is marked "first-person, non-discursive." It's what we all sink into when we shut upo and be present. But we're not used to hanging here without thinking about it. Or providing ourselves a kind of live running commentary. That's the hard part. Not doing that.

How far are you willing to go past the threahold? One inch? Half an inch? Or are you content to simply talk about me closing doors. We all know about the discursive. No need to hammer on that. It's all well known.

So there's the door. What do you do? Talk, or make a move?

No theory. No claims. No arguments. No bullsh#t. No "misrepresenting math and physics. Let it all go for a minute. Just drop it.

Put up or shut up.

You're move, Hombre...

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
What do you know about Marlow and the first-person, non-discursive Largo? Do you see yourself, the strength of your illusions about "the others"? Or to use your words: Your bullsh#t (gold as you see it yourself). Or: using my former words: how you're stuck in the anal phase (it's just a metaphor)...

And your theory-in-use Largo: Count your words on this thread and the Mind thread and compare the number of words to the number of words from other STers. The result would be remarkable - and what would the result say about Largo-being-in-the-discursive-mode compared to other STers?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
What do you know about Marlow and the first-person, non-discursive Largo?
-


I cordially invite you to put forth whatever you can say about the first-person, non-discursive.

No extra words. No yammering. Just a simple, direct invitation for you to say what you have experienced. Nothing more. Nothing less.

JL
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Aug 5, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
I once thought this was owing to terror, but have come to realize this is mainly the habituated ways of us old folks, who simply can't muster the sac, the wonder and the curiosity to move, even for five minutes, out of the old comfort zone

I couldn't resist reprinting this, after bursting into laughter when reading it. Great entertainment.


;>)
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
What does Shannon-Weaver have to do with what you are saying, MikeL? The theory concerns information, e.g. bits, not meanings.

With all due respect, I don't think you're up on where and how the model has been applied most widely. It's a simple model, perhaps the right level of analysis for this audience. I meant to show where things go wrong in communication. If anything, communication has become far more complex, nuanced, and problematical.


MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
If I understand you right, you are now saying that your words: "If you want to accord with the Tao, just do your job and let go." ". . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - are just a starting point for a dialogue.

Question: Are you willing to change your original words as a consequence of something that turns up in the dialogue? Or: Are your words/starting point a belief that you will not change?

Well, my script is out there in the ether, and there's no way I can take them back even if I wanted to. Those marks (writings) are no longer mine. They belong to you as much as they belong to me.

Yes, dialogue . . . always. (Have I suggested that I'm not open to dialogue? Bad me. I apologize.)

BTW, those quotes are not my words any more than Beckett's are yours. They have a ring of truth to them for me. I'm hesitant to repackage them and claim them as my own when I cannot say more or better.

On the other hand, I'll just concede to whatever it is that you want to challenge. We've gone on for so long on whatever the issue is that I no longer remember or care about it. Really. Perhaps I'm getting old and senile.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 5, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
MH2 - Point taken, but until it is common science and for lack of a better term "everyday happenings" this is an idea that has not been rigorously test and proven to be so. As it stands my previous statement holds true:
Also, it should be mentioned (if it wasn't already clear) that I quoted Werner who had noted the following
This is why people in a coma are not able to communicate in normal ways.

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

I was merely pointing out his speculative statement "Consciousness is not in the brain, but in the heart"… which seemed like utter crap when I read it… also, if it were true that consciousness is in the heart… why not run the MRI on the heart instead of the brain… seems to me the young doctor Owen is looking in the wrong cavity to get his questions answered…. according to Werner…


Interesting what they have to say in the attached Nature article: “I realized there weren't any. We all realized that.”

Family needs to find out detail of a will…. maybe useful…
Doctor needs to know what hurts? Maybe not
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 06:32pm PT
With all due respect, I don't think you're up on where and how the model has been applied most widely.

It saddens me to hear that. I hope the "applications" benefit from some of the error-correction methods outlined in the original.
WBraun

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 06:49pm PT
Jingus said -- "Consciousness is not in the brain, but in the heart"

I never said any such thing .... You did Jingy.

You made your own statement that's not even true because you really are stupid.

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

You forgot all about the most important word "source".

Consciousness is spread all over the body but still it ultimately has a source.

You remain fool number one ......
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
Sorry to be so tardy, but this was addressed to me.

I've been asking people around town if they believe in evolution. And almost all say "yea I do"
Without understanding what it means. I guess this is what you refer to willful ignorance?

The best evidence of evolution is by far the fossil record, but you can see it in living species, as Darwin did by studying finch beaks in the Galapagos. Biology, past and present, is rich in evidence.

If people believe something, it all depends on how well they understand it. When does "belief" become outright "knowledge"?

Almost all ignorance is just plain old ignorance. I just don't know. I could look it up and learn a little, but most of us don't have the time or the need.

Willful ignorance is a special case. When I watched those youtube videos, I was seeing willful ignorance.

This special case is where they specifically do not learn about a topic, while at the same time making grand claims that involve this topic. It is so bad that it rivals criminal con men in ability.

The outright drop dead best place to look for deception is not in religion. It is in politics. If you go click on the Climate Change thread and read some of those posts, it is downright scary. People believe all kinds of crazy stuff.

If you want to understand Evolution, just go read the Wiki page on it and follow the links. There is so much knowledge and experience on the taco that somebody should be able to point you in the correct direction.

You can't deny the evidence. How life began is unknown, but after it got started, it is pretty easy to follow.

As I've said before, I work with geologists who are Christians. You may think that this would be impossible, but somehow they have zero trouble with it. I assume that they look at the history of the Universe and just say that this is the way God did it. It seems to me that if evolution threatens your faith, then you need to beef up your faith.

HFCS is going to kill me for being nice. Oh well. The Chief could drop back in.

WBraun

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 07:05pm PT
How life began is unknown

If you do not know how life began then all your knowledge remains completely incomplete and ultimately defective.

Just as your mathematical models are ......
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 08:32pm PT
The simple and clear reasons I keep inviting you to explain yourself is that you keep making sweping statments about both the discursive and non-discursive, and it is my opinion that you are basically lost in both arenas.

Are you talking to yourself? I've been listening to you for three years.

Remember when you dripped the single word Qualia out there and didn't explain it? When I read the dictionary definition, it isn't hard to understand at all:

Qualia ; singular form: Quale: is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term derives from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind." Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.
That wasn't so hard, was it?

Now lets try with the Discursive Mind:

Discursive psychology (DP) is a form of discourse analysis that focuses on psychological themes.

Discursive psychology starts with psychological phenomena as things that are constructed, attended to, and understood in interaction. An evaluation, say, may be constructed using particular phrases and idioms, responded to by the recipient (as a compliment perhaps) and treated as the expression of a strong position. In discursive psychology the focus is not on psychological matters somehow leaking out into interaction; rather interaction is the primary site where psychological issues are live.

It is philosophically opposed to more traditional cognitivist approaches to language. It uses studies of naturally occurring conversation to critique the way that topics have been conceptualised and treated in psychology.

Somehow I get the idea that JL is using it in a different way.

This is a decent link. It at least explains discursive mind chatter in two sentences.

http://mymeditativemoments.com/?p=4989
Messages 16661 - 16680 of total 22697 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