Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"Scored a $20 front row last minute ticket."
Until recently we had a great Shakespeare festival here in Santa Cruz... included free admission to ushers whose jobs were minimal. Saw a great "Othello" a terrific "King Lear" all outside in a redwood grove with a picnic basket...what fun. Also more contemporary works like "Waiting for Dawkins" a fantasy of romantic pleasure in which all philosophical questions were responded to by the protagonist as "it's just evolution and that's the solution." A sort of proto hip hop exploration of rigorous self indulgence. Really fun.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"regressive liberals"?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvQJ_zsL1U
"Thank you Sam, Richard and Bill for saying what we want to say. I am an ex-Muslim living in a Muslim country. I must pretend to be Muslim and keep silent to protect my life. If my online comments were discovered I could be killed, or at least imprisoned and separated from my children for life, but those regressive lefties don't have the balls to say a word about me or millions of people oppressed by Islam and Sharia Law (apostates, gays, women, all religious minorities) And worse, if someone in the world tries to support us and attack this evil ideology, those f*#ken regressive lefties like Ben Afflek would yell at him to keep him silent. How could the Muslim world hear a different opinion about their religious backward ideology if no one in the west is talking about it ??? And of course no one in Muslim world could ever talk because he risks losing his life. I am too much disappointed in those regressive liberals who are effectively betraying all liberal values because they are too coward. In fact western liberals are failing middle east liberals, including Liberal Muslims who are trying to reform the religion. I was once a devout Muslim, I used to believe in this horrific sharia law and even demand it to be applied more effectively in my county. Thanks to brave people like Sam Harris and Bill Mahr, they managed to convince me of their civilized opinion. They offended me at first, but later I could see they are correct. Now, I feel sorry for my devout Muslim friends and neighbors who are good people believing in evil things because they have never heard a counter argument."
Samir Mashghoul, youtube commenter
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Take consciousness out of the equation and see how much gets written about snow flakes or anything else.
people with anterograde and retrograde amnesia display "normal" personalities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_amnesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia
so while they might be able to write about snowflakes, they don't know why they can... they aren't conscious... not only that, they may have no memory of their "unique experience."
and the opposite, keep the consciousness, loose the ability to communicate it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia
In these cases, we take "memory" out of the equation and we get something less simple then the ability to write about snowflakes... "memory" is essential for our "experience" in your determination, and our "consciousness" of our "experience" depends on memory.
All of these things are much more complex then you'd represent them, and your simple model reduces everything to a subjective basis, which cannot be fully communicated, after all, those things truly unique to each of us may not be communicated to another, it may be impossible to do so.
But the body of medical knowledge certainly points to many cases where impaired brain function significantly alters our concept of "consciousness," "memory" etc... and even Aristotle understood the fallibility of memory, and that introduced a weakness in his arguments of empirical knowledge based on our experience (since memory is essential for defining experience, unless you want to delve into the unconscious).
What does it matter, this uniqueness you have presented?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
All of these things are much more complex than you'd represent them . . .
It seems the Zen experience overly simplifies this discussion. Eschewing rational thought puts one in a limbo populated primarily by other practitioners.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Ed: All of these things are much more complex then you'd represent them, and your simple model reduces everything to a subjective basis, which cannot be fully communicated, after all, those things truly unique to each of us may not be communicated to another, it may be impossible to do so.
I think in all instances everything is more complex than anyone can represent them. That’s the problem with representation. All models are simple. Everything is truly unique.
Jogill: It seems the Zen experience overly simplifies this discussion. Eschewing rational thought puts one in a limbo populated primarily by other practitioners.
It seems perverse to say that a view of no closure, of things that manifest but cannot be pinned down, of complete openness (absolute potentiality), and of one infinite and indescribable singularity is “simple.” Of course anyone can say anything they want to, but I don’t think one can fully grasp what’s being pointed at with the mind. I don’t think you have a grasp at the limitations of language and the limitations of concepts. For example, haven’t you said here that mathematics can “say things” that cannot be said otherwise?
No one is eschewing rational thought. Rational thought has its place—just not the whole place, please.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Apart from entertaining spurts of metaphysics it seems to me that JL keeps saying the same things about subjective and objective. He admonishes us to "do the work" in order to comprehend his perspectives, and I have little doubt he is correct in this, although the perception he espouses is probably just another peculiar mental state like my art of dreaming.
I wonder what this thread (actually, the Mind thread) would look like if we all had been Zen-sitting for twenty years? What would we be saying to each other? Form is emptiness and emptiness is form?
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
I don't think we're unique. Most of us don't think at all, we just choose from a smörgåsbord of other people's ideas. And those who do think, at certain times the same ideas pop up at the same time unknown to other people having that specific idea.
We're 6 billion people who react pretty similar to same stimuli. Cultural conditions aside, it's knee-jerk reactions to most everything. It's a pretty dream that each and everyone of us would be unique from another, but I think that's all it is. What we are though, is that each and everyone is a single individual who stands alone in the world from the moment that the umbilical cord is cut. We may pray and hope and wish for a soulmate, but it's our own shortcomings which is the obstacle. There's plenty of them in reality, everyone as un-unique as yourself.
Nah, that last statement maybe isn't true. Most people are utterly boring, which reduces the amount of possible soulmates, and by logic then they're not un-unique in the same way as you are. That gives groups. Within each group you're not unique, but each group might be unique in comparison to another. But on the other hand, if you're part of a group, you're not unique. Sic.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
All of these things are much more complex then you'd represent them, and your simple model reduces everything to a subjective basis, which cannot be fully communicated, after all, those things truly unique to each of us may not be communicated to another, it may be impossible to do so.
-
This is off-base. I have never sought to reduce "everything" to a simple, subjective model, I have only railed against trying to reduce "everything" to a simple objective model - and as we have seen, subjectivity is NOT reducible to the objective.
The reason we cannot "fully communicate" what is unique to each of us is that we can only relate an objectification by way of words and actions and so forth, we cannot pull anyone else inside our subjective bubble. And even if we could, we each would experience the content in ways that were unique to us.
What I have defended against is the fiction that life and reality can best be boiled down to cognitive output, the bottom line or essence of which is discursive data - a process that works wonderfully with objects, but falls short with human existence. The belief in the hegemony of this notion was well stated by Ed, who some time back stated that he had meditated long and hard, had personally encountered the various "states" that I have hinted at over the years, and his discursive evaluation of these experiences is that he had encountered what I had encountered and that "it" was really no big deal. In other words, once Ed got his discursive head around the "it" of the subjective adventures, the mystery was gone and he knew - at least he knew what I was talking about, which was not much.
Of course what we have been saying all along is that meditation is a group process and the experiences worth having are in essence the experiential process of what arises when you sit with a group under the leadership of a teacher. How this could get conflated with personal evaluations of mental content is something that only a phyicalist/reductionist could come up with. But when you are trained to measure objective output, are are no doubt world class at it, that is the baggage you take into a meditation practice - that it has to be ABOUT this or that which we can communicate symbolically. Or else it is nothing or ephemeral and serves no purpose and leaves the person asking: So what? Why is this important?
More on this later. It is really getting down to the core of the issue IMO.
JL
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Most people are utterly boring, which reduces the amount of possible soulmates, and by logic then they're not un-unique in the same way as you are. That gives groups. Within each group you're not unique, but each group might be unique in comparison to another. But on the other hand, if you're part of a group, you're not unique.
I see myself as fitting into the subset of those who believe that intelligent life throughout our universe is extremely plausible, that overall my life is pretty ordinary, although I have had some unique experiences, it has not been too out of the ordinary, though I believe I'm nothing if not mundane because I'm so temporary.
On a cosmic scale my life is so short that it appears extraordinary to me in that I exist at all. I cherish life more each day for those very reasons, because I feel so fortunate to have shared life with so many beautiful and interesting people along the way, and for the multiple adventures and experiences.
Though I do not relish the suffering of life and the inevitability of death, I do believe I wouldn't be who I am, nor would I have realized what little I know, without my personal experiences of suffering or without what I perceive as an overriding and intuitive awareness that my consciousness is only temporary in this universe.
-bushman
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Oh, Lollie:
As Largo points out, we are all living in our own little bubble. And it is very particular.
None of us can help but rely upon the experiences or expertise of others. We must (or seemingly) trust that others have similar views. And why not? We have all undoubtedly been socialized and institutionalized by our education, our culture, our communities, and what we think are (approximate) similar experiences. “You climb mountains? Hey, so do I!” We hold similar beliefs (physics, economics, medicine, etc.), and we hold similar values (what’s good, bad, appropriate, correct). Sociologists have argued the paradox about social and psychological similarity for decades. Max Weber coined the idea of “an iron cage” sociologically (we must all be the same), which certain psychologists have argued the complete opposite. (Look at everything that is unique in your experience—time, date, place, parents, age, education, etc.). I don’t mean to disparage you, but as Shakespeare said, “Oh what a thing you make of me.” I am unique, just as you are, as are everyone else. Some of us have given up trying to change the earth, the climate, the culture we are in. Some of us are living our lives in the best way we know. As Socrates said, all men do what they think is best. Could you give the rest of humanity that favor, that understanding, that wisdom? We are all doing the best that we can. Unfortunately, it’s not your wisdom.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I have only railed against trying to reduce "everything" to a simple objective model
I have certainly never said that there is a simple objective model to which everything could be reduced.
who some time back stated that he had meditated long and hard, had personally encountered the various "states" that I have hinted at over the years, and his discursive evaluation of these experiences is that he had encountered what I had encountered and that "it" was really no big deal.
never said this either, what I said was that my experience was different from yours, if we compare notes...
In other words, once Ed got his discursive head around the "it" of the subjective adventures, the mystery was gone and he knew - at least he knew what I was talking about, which was not much.
never said this either, but my idea of mystery may be different then yours, and the ramifications of something being mysterious could be something else we might not share
Of course what we have been saying all along is that meditation is a group process and the experiences worth having are in essence the experiential process of what arises when you sit with a group under the leadership of a teacher.
all well and good, but the "conflation" accusation is a bit odd... group process, leadership, teachers... these are not subjective things, they are objective things and they are mediated by communication. My only assertion is that this process is not that much different than any other group learning process.
If you are saying that it is, well I'd like to know how...
But when you are trained to measure objective output, are are no doubt world class at it, that is the baggage you take into a meditation practice - that it has to be ABOUT this or that which we can communicate symbolically. Or else it is nothing or ephemeral and serves no purpose and leaves the person asking: So what? Why is this important?
huh? sorry you seemed to have taken this so badly, Largo... for the most part I don't over analyze my meditation practice... it really is just as you describe it... I don't ask for any deeper reasons, I don't derive any deeper meaning from it. It is ephemeral as a state, and since I'm ephemeral, my practice is too...
The fact that objective and subjective are not reducible has more to do with the construction of the two concepts as dialectics than it has to do with anything real, they are constructed to be exclusive, as an approximate description of the perceived boundary between what we experience that is unique to ourselves and what we all can agree upon is common.
But you use it as some sort of demonstration of the failure of science. It is not, it hasn't anything to do with the failure of science.
Science will never derive your experience... it makes no claim to do so...
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Platonic Solids
It is really getting down to the core of the issue IMO (JL)
5726 posts later . . .
There is no core of the issue. You are approaching that which has no (meta)physical extent.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
As Largo points out, we are all living in our own little bubble. And it is very particular.
None of us can help but rely upon the experiences or expertise of others. We must (or seemingly) trust that others have similar views. And why not? We have all undoubtedly been socialized and institutionalized by our education, our culture, our communities, and what we think are (approximate) similar experiences. “You climb mountains? Hey, so do I!” We hold similar beliefs (physics, economics, medicine, etc.), and we hold similar values (what’s good, bad, appropriate, correct). Sociologists have argued the paradox about social and psychological similarity for decades. Max Weber coined the idea of “an iron cage” sociologically (we must all be the same), which certain psychologists have argued the complete opposite. (Look at everything that is unique in your experience—time, date, place, parents, age, education, etc.)
That's a mouthful MikeL. I'm trying to get it straight. When we hear of other people's experiences these become our "subjective" experience? It's not until we actually personally try/do the knowledge received does it become our "objective" experience?
I need to get this concretely before I move on..🚶
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Science will never derive your experience... it makes no claim to do so...
are you so sure what "it" will do? ✌
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
But you use it as some sort of demonstration of the failure of science. It is not, it hasn't anything to do with the failure of science.
--
Not a failure of science, rather it underscores the limitation of discursive evaluations. Science, as we know, is genius with objects. But if you wanna know about your experience (your life) itself, objectifying cannot be the first line of input. Later, sure. That's what we are trying here. But for most on this thread, science (objectifying) has no limits.
I would agree with you about meditation in an organized group being a learning experience not unlike any other learning environments. But the process and goals are so different than the search for true things, objects, ideas and so forth, that it is its own thing, IME.
What PSPP has been saying rather elegantly is that the art of no-mind practice is the art of doing nothing. Or put differently, the art of discovering what it is to be a human being, as opposed to a human doer mired in concepts and evaluations and cognitive noise. If it was easy to do nothing - an obvious contradiction of terms - we would all be masters. For most of us, the very idea is a non-starter.
More later on the non-reductive aspects of mind.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
But the process and goals are so different than the search for true things, objects, ideas and so forth, that it is its own thing, IME.
but it has goals...
...if only to learn, which is not a subjective process.
I don't know why you resist this notion so fiercely.
And why is the state of doing nothing different from any of the other states? When I am working through a difficult problem in physics my mind is not babbling on and on... but the thought process is focused on that problem. It's quite a different state, it takes time and effort to cultivate it, it results in a resolution of understanding, often not apparent all at once.
Sometimes this can go on for days, and even longer.
One might say that there are limits to what one can know objectively, there are definite limits to what one can know subjectively. Sucked into the subjective point, one hardly has to know anything at all outside of their own experience.
But what was that experience? the very recollection is subject to the fallibility of memory, heavily colored by your perceptions... all of them undeniably your own. What actually happened? it doesn't matter.
Is all that truly matters your perceived experience?
I think, in many ways over the years (and not just here), you answer: yes.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!