Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 04:01am PT
|
I'm not sure what you mean here (especially the use of the word "ability"). An analogy: could there be a scientific theory of gravity without the ability to create black holes excised from their physical constraints? (Or maybe I should say spatial/temporal constraints? I'm having a hard time recognizing the analogy of "biological" in this context).
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 07:29am PT
|
Me: . . . steps away from direct experience."
Jogill: In order to abstract? Explain "step" please.
(This is me, being particularly intellectual for the moment.)
The conceptualization I tried to communicate is that first there would be modules of cognition. One module might be "artistic" (which, let's say, is not intellectual, per se). Another might be the "movement of the body physically." Another might be "mathematics." Another might be "sensing instincts or intuitions." And so forth. One might be "abstracting."
It seems to me that any abstraction presents some kind of stickman model: a few variables associated with one another in such a way as to suggest an entity ("what is *that* 'thing?'") or a process ("this "thing" undergoes a change in this way"). Definitions are loose models as well.
Now let's put these two notions together. When your wife sees a painting in the museum and talks about it, she's somehow chosen certain attributes (to the exclusion of an infinite set of others) to focus on with the person she's talking with. There's the model. But behind the scene is the very activity itself of abstracting as a operational module in cognition.
So, to abstract first requires firing-up the cognitive module called "abstracting"; then second, applying it to an instantiation or a "thing" which is even more specific; and third communicating that model to another (which relies upon a particular choice of words among many). That's at least two steps away from wide-open direct experience without any conceptualization or elaboration. First there is the direct experience, then little by little, the infinite breadth and depth of an experience gets narrowed down step-by-step until it is but a small particularization of the direct experience.
We can say that the ability to abstract takes some training or learning. If abstraction is meaningful to one's life, the learning constitutes an institutionalization, and all institutionalizations cast (or recast) a view of the world. You might say a mathematician's view of this world is different than the view of a poet or a literary writer.
So, John, it's not simply that one intellectualizes something or another with abstraction that leads away from direct, unelaborated experiences. That one *can* intellectualize / abstract to begin with (which comes from training or learning or experiences of those sorts) is the first step away from seeing and simply being with direct experience without attendant social and psychological (and spiritual) elaborations.
Most contemplative spiritual practices that I'm familiar with tend to attack institutionalizations etc. head-on by having people look at their minds and observe their cognitions (of various sorts). In the most radical spiritual traditions, practices will go so far as to directly challenge traditional social mores and accepted views *just* to break down what a student assumes must be true.
Theoretically, as university teachers (especially in the humanities) we asked students to do the same things--only there we focused on content rather than pristine awareness: "What do you think of these ideas as opposed to those ideas?" The idea is that people should think and feel for themselves and not assume any doctrine or viewpoint without hard circumspection.
(My apologies if this response has been lengthy.)
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 07:33am PT
|
I would have thought Ed, that the notion of consciousness excised from its physical constraints would be more in the realm of religion, philosophy and spiritualism??
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 07:43am PT
|
Meanwhile Mike, I'm surprised at your comments on modern Vajrayana Buddhism. While some schools of Buddhism do not emphasize mantras, most do, and certainly all Tibetan traditions. I've attended many retreats at the Nyingma Center in Berkeley where we chanted mantras for hours. Among other things, they are taught as a way of clearing extraneous thoughts, including tv theme songs, out of one's mind. Tartang Tulku, the founder of that center has written many books for westerners, all of them heavy on psychology and very light on Tibetan religion and tradition.
Personally I would guess that when your retreat master found herself repeating Mr. Ed's theme song, she regarded it as one more trick of her monkey mind to distract her back to the mundane world which she most likely countered with a mantra.For her to give you that example I think was simply a display of skillful means. Anyone taking a three year retreat has already been through the preliminaries including mantras, visualizations, and prostrations 100,000 times each and many teachings.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:11am PT
|
Good thinking
Good thinking usually seems to be thinking that I agree with, thinking that confirms what I think. I wonder what’s so good about that way of thinking, and why we all seem so good at it?
Science I think is more in the realm of good thinking is thinking that produces more accurate predictions, and we think that means that those thoughts are closer to the truth. Prolly some advantages to that way of thinking too.
But hard to argue with the results, in either case.
I’d definitely say that there’s something good about thinking (p->q)!->(q->p) because I think that’s how it actually factually works in reality, and we imagine that good thinking is thinking things that are true.
But reality also seems to say that believing (p->q)->(q->p) is good because we seem to have a tendency to think that way in reality, even if we end up thinking things that aren’t quite true.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:39am PT
|
You might be tempted to realize that all this incredibly intelligent speculation should indicate by now that the reasoning process is based upon misunderstandings into the basic nature of things
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 04:37pm PT
|
MikeL: "So, John, it's not simply that one intellectualizes something or another with abstraction that leads away from direct, unelaborated experiences."
Thanks. I had no idea of all that was going on or the steps involved.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 01:53am PT
|
Ed Hartouni wrote: yes, necessarily... otherwise you don't have a theory.
Not if consciousness is an emergent property of biology.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 06:56am PT
|
Not if consciousness is an emergent property of biology
I was thinking of the possibility that a theory might describe (correctly) how consciousness developed as simple forms of life evolved into more complex forms, over time. If so, would that count as an "ability" to create consciousness? I mean, in order to create consciousness, all you would have to do to is to figure out how to "create" simple forms of life and then let them evolve in the right conditions for, say, several hundred million years. What a recipe!
On the other hand, I would tend to agree that the extent to which consciousness can be excised from its biological constraints is an open question and not an a priori condition for the existence of a scientific theory.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 07:47am PT
|
Take all your chemicals and dead body parts and put them on your lab table.
Now produce life since all the ingredients to do so you say are there ....
C'mon do it !!!!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 07:49am PT
|
John,
Was that a tongue in cheek comment? Sometimes backhanded compliments are offered.
My rendition above is a conceptualization based upon my own institutionalizations. :-) I mean, you see that, don't you?
Jan,
I agree with all you say.
My personal experience with the "preliminaries" in Dzogchen (the 100K prostrations, 100K vajrasattva recititations, 100K mandala offerings, guru yoga, etc.) all impacted my views and purified some of my intentions. Indeed, the teacher's comments to me in the story I related were meant for me at that time.
Would you not say that those activities are *not* the realizations but practices that might lead to realizations?
Whether one goes to mass at 6 am in church every morning tirelessly, gets down on the floor 100,000 times, or bows and prays to Mecca every single morning and evening of their lives, these are all methods to purify, renunciate, or visualize and expose the self and see What This Is. IMO, the methods are rituals that mean to open up being. I might be in error on this, but rituals create special non-consciousness juju that can break through to being and get around all of the filters and veils that get in the way of seeing. Rituals appear to be especially powerful among more primitive communities.
I'm sure my practice of art is just another practice not unlike the Ngondro (preliminaries).
I told the story to add some humor to the question of Mind. I hope we can laugh and joke about it.
IMO, those of us who consider ourselves modern are faced with a new frontier. We have been taught that we are autonomous, independent, and can make ourselves into what we want to be--and we don't need no stinking badges from religion, spiritual practices, magic, or myth. We can do all of this awareness and awakening stuff on our own, thank you very much. Ritual of any sort is not needed. At least this: we can see the rituals now, and we have considerable understanding of how they work.
That, I think, puts us in a bind if we are open to science and myth and spirit and philosophy (and every other approach to seeing and expressing ourselves in contemporary life). It means we need to do a lot of juggling of viewpoints. I have to see the partiality or emptiness of views *and* be open to what they connect to at the same time.
I appreciate Buddhism for the most part (not so much the 4th Noble Truth). I think I appreciate all practices and views, especially the dark daimons inside of me (that generate my art).
If pushed, I think the best practice for everything is solitude.
Be well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 07:53am PT
|
True mantras are NOT material sound vibrations and those sound vibrations act from the spiritual stratum.
The gross materialists in their brainwashed material consciousness think the mantra is only an ordinary material vibration ultimately due to their poor fund of knowledge.
True mantras one does not become tired chanting them.
The gross materialist can do the actual scientific experiment between material sound vibrations and spiritual sound vibrations on their own selves.
It will take time though not overnight.
But they'll never do it because it takes work as it's so much easier to babble mental specualting horsesh!t .....
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 10:43am PT
|
"Was that a tongue in cheek comment?"
Well, only partly, Mike. I am impressed with your analysis, but I am not conversant with cognition theory, so it seems a little bewildering. Whereas the act of watching the accident and shifting to a form of abstraction seems so effortless and natural.
I do learn quite a bit from your posts. Thanks for your contributions, and I'm happy you are feeling well again!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 11:57am PT
|
I do learn quite a bit from your posts.
Ditto. Which would not be the case if we had a final, complete, and accurate description.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 05:47pm PT
|
Good point.
As usual, when Mile L elaborates I agree with him. I especially like and agree with the following although I sometimes envy people who have a more focused point of view.
That, I think, puts us in a bind if we are open to science and myth and spirit and philosophy (and every other approach to seeing and expressing ourselves in contemporary life). It means we need to do a lot of juggling of viewpoints. I have to see the partiality or emptiness of views *and* be open to what they connect to at the same time.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 06:12pm PT
|
Which would not be the case if we had a final, complete, and accurate description.
Final, complete, and accurate description you learn the most.
Because it's complete.
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 06:32pm PT
|
You don't mind because
I don't matter.
One
can consider the opposite.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 11:18pm PT
|
Not if consciousness is an emergent property of biology.
I don't follow your train of thought here, emergent systems are describable quantitatively, also the systems they emerge from, biological systems are not exceptions.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2019 - 12:41am PT
|
I don't follow your train of thought here, emergent systems are describable quantitatively, also the systems they emerge from, biological systems are not exceptions.
Well, that might be the case philosophically in terms of theoretical principles, but we don't yet have a good quantitative description of the structural, cellular, chemical, electrical, or functional makeup of a cubic millimeter of brain tissue. The inherent complexity of the brain is going to defy even rudimentary quantitative descriptions of any of those aspects of the brain for many, many decades to yet to come.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2019 - 08:01am PT
|
John & Jan,
The explanation above is metaphorically conceptual. (Like that contradiction?) I don't really know how seeing works or what it is. I feel sure there is no single model or theory of cognition. Modules have enjoyed some favor, but tying them together has always been a challenge. Institutionalization I know and see--but I also see much individualization. Both institutionalization and individualization seem to occur above ground (consciously) as well as below ground (unconsciously). Together, many "reasonable stories" can be developed about seeing.
I've become greatly attracted to the unconscious stuff. (It might be the art I'm doing, it could a function of older age, or the grace of God.) The unconscious calls to me. Unconsciousness, and communicating with it, is delicious, but I need to be in a very open space, almost floating, groundless. The connection that I have with it is tenuous and static'y. It mostly comes with solitude.
The weather here these days is terrific. Warm in the sun, and cool in the shade. The trees have filled out, the birds are many and riotous, and we have a field or two of wildflowers in our yard. I hope it's good for you where you are. (In another month, the heat will have arrived.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!