Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[smcder]

@Soupie

Ok let's deal with this unfinished business and put the elephant back in the bath water to play with the infant.

@Soupie says:

"I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning. "

----end quote ----

Cf. lower case m-meaning with Strawson's naive moral realism and comparison to mathematical truths ...

I subscribe to the "everything you know is wrong" school that sees conceptual thinking as a fun and creative activity that has little to do with Reality.

It doesn't mean we can't know anything, it does challenge the sense of knowing = The Way Things Are and holds
It foolish to believe ones thoughts. And it doesn't mean conceptual thinking isn't useful, in the conceptual world - but it does mean you'd best leave it behind when going out into the real world.

The real world, right now I hold with the Buddhists, is intrinsically empty and I like Galens thoughts on process ... Think in verbs not nouns ...

This extends all the way to God, about whom the Buddha was notoriously agnostic (although it's indicated the sly old fellow knew more than he'd say) ... God too is intrinsically empty or is the One Thing standing behind all the ceaseless change, either way His (or Her, I suspect) existence is irrelevant to the cessation of suffering.

Does that clear it up? Sharpen my saw indeed! Better to try and sharpen a tyger's teeth ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

It all comes back to Nietzsche again and again and etc.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gc0VtqkkxJk

About 7 minutes in Strawson notes a "completely uncanny nose for truth that extends beyond the psychological to the physical" and is "bewildering" to Strawson. He then refers Nietsches work to present day knowledge in physics - that's apparently covered in another session I'd like to find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Okay, I'm working my way through this article, and while I'm not finished, several of the authors concepts resonate deeply, very deeply, with me. I'm anxious to read where he goes with it.

I see that the author identifies as materialist and apparently is a monist... Interesting.

Anyhow, this partially summative paragraph captures many of the ideas I've clumsily tried to share here:

After I finish this article, I'd like to find one by Chalmers (and others) addressing the same topic.

Here's another you might like:

Galen Strawson and Radical Self-Awareness - waggish



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

"This is not to say that reality contains anything that actually makes the grade as a thing or object or substance. The Buddhist doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ suggests that nothing does. An alternative view is that only one thing does—the universe. On this view, Parmenides and a number of leading present-day cosmologists are right. There’s really only one A-Grade thing or object or substance: the universe. (Nietzsche and Spinoza agree that nothing smaller will do.)"

G Strawson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

@smcder Steve - I strongly urge you to make a distinction with text you are quoting. You are quoting text but it winds up looking just like your posted text - can become gnarly to unravel - trying to figure out 'who' is 'talking'. You can use the quote buttons - but if you don't like the way that looks - I would suggest either bold or italicize the quoted text with quotation marks or something. Just saying.

Post#21 is an example of the ambiguity that can be created - especially for someone not familiar with the conversation or the posters. Who are you quoting? When does the quote end? When is it you commenting? etc.

 

[smcder]

@smcder Steve - I strongly urge you to make a distinction with text you are quoting. You are quoting text but it winds up looking just like your posted text - can become gnarly to unravel - trying to figure out 'who' is 'talking'. You can use the quote buttons - but if you don't like the way that looks - I would suggest either bold or italicize the quoted text with quotation marks or something. Just saying.

Post#21 is an example of the ambiguity that can be created - especially for someone not familiar with the conversation or the posters. Who are you quoting? When does the quote end? When is it you commenting? etc.

See if that's better - ?

I meant to put Soupie's name before the quote .. I don't know how to bold/italicize on Tapatalk ... No laptop here during the day ... :-(



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

@Tyger - there should be just two quotes: Soupie's text at the beginning and then "everything you know is wrong - did that show in the original? The quotation marks I mean?

It really is very difficult for me to type on this touchscreen phone - extremely difficult to select text or go back and insert, it's my finger (absolutely no way I could use a thumb) - I've researched it but no one admits that touchscreens don't work for everyone, best I can tell it's the shape of my fingers - the end arebbroad and flat, I've always had trouble picking up small things (you know, like bricks or small children ;-) ... Any kind of touchscreen technology is this way for me - like Redbox ... I've actually punch- uh tapped vigorously on a Redbox screen in frustration ... And automatic faucets and paper towel dispensers are right out. My brother in law was skeptical until one time we were in a men's room and I waved my have under the paper towel dispenser and the sink came on.

And I've tried all the suggested techniques I can find online to make one better at this ...

I guess I need to break down and by a laptop with an old fashioned keybroad!


it's anything I try to do on this phone ... I'm wondering about a stylus or maybe they make a giant phone for older persons?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

@smcder you have me laughing out loud. I've been using a TS phone as well, and edit text is very difficult. One can manually add a quote box as well by adding the below code around text. But yeah, navigating the cursor through text on a TS is difficult.

[quote="author"]text[/quote]

One thing in my quote above from the article on "Subject of Experience" is the statement that mind is "all in the brain."

I disagree with that. (He may have meant it generally.) I think the mind exists between the brain/nervous system and the environment.

I subscribe to the "everything you know is wrong" school that sees conceptual thinking as a fun and creative activity that has little to do with Reality.

I agree with this. I suppose that's why I had considered myself agnostic. I like to think I'm "pruning my narrative" for concepts that I can use to make sense of the world, but I'm very realistic about the possibility that they can all be very wrong.

One thing I continually think about is how we - an autobiographical species - may be shaping our own reality. Are we really discovering how reality works, or are we creating reality, or at the very least subtly shaping it?

 

[smcder]

@smcder you have me laughing out loud. I've been using a TS phone as well, and edit text is very difficult. One can manually add a quote box as well by adding the below code around text. But yeah, navigating the cursor through text on a TS is difficult.

[quote="author"]text[/quote]

One thing in my quote above from the article on "Subject of Experience" is the statement that mind is "all in the brain."

I disagree with that. (He may have meant it generally.) I think the mind exists between the brain/nervous system and the environment.

I agree with this. I suppose that's why I had considered myself agnostic. I like to think I'm "pruning my narrative" for concepts that I can use to make sense of the world, but I'm very realistic about the possibility that they can all be very wrong.

One thing I continually think about is how we - an autobiographical species - may be shaping our own reality. Are we really discovering how reality works, or are we creating reality, or at the very least subtly shaping it?

Read Jeff Kripal's Authors of the Impossible ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

"This is not to say that reality contains anything that actually makes the grade as a thing or object or substance. The Buddhist doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ suggests that nothing does. An alternative view is that only one thing does—the universe. On this view, Parmenides and a number of leading present-day cosmologists are right. There’s really only one A-Grade thing or object or substance: the universe. (Nietzsche and Spinoza agree that nothing smaller will do.)"

G Strawson

That's a cool idea but it is too abstract to serve, much less satisfy the mind of an existent confronting the actual pressures of his or her {and our} lived reality (e.g., childhood cancer, nuclear missiles online for use at any time; the genetic modification of the earth's food supply; the degradation of the planet's ecology; the continuing exploitation of half the geopolitical world by the other half, etc.). What I'm saying is that abstract conceptions of 'Reality', whether in science, philosophy, or mysticism, do not replace or account for the palpably lived world or constitute escape clauses from it, which philosophy has for the most part recognized from its beginnings. Some viewpoints tread dangerously close to nihilism, e.g.,

smcder said:
I subscribe to the "everything you know is wrong" school that sees conceptual thinking as a fun and creative activity that has little to do with Reality.

What would be the point in continuing this thread then?

 

[smcder]

That's a cool idea but it is too abstract to serve, much less satisfy the mind of an existent confronting the actual pressures of his or her {and our} lived reality (e.g., childhood cancer, nuclear missiles online for use at any time; the genetic modification of the earth's food supply; the degradation of environment; the continuing exploitation of half the world by the other half, etc.). What I'm saying is that abstract conceptions of 'Reality', whether in science, philosophy, or mysticism, do not replace or account for the palpably lived world or constitute escape clauses from it, which philosophy has for the most part recognized from its beginnings. Some viewpoints tread dangerously close to nihilism, e.g.,



What would be the point in continuing this thread then?

Because it's what we love, what we are passionate about, because it challenges us and motivates us to dig deeper to think (and write) more clearly ... In hopes it will inspire someone and because, by changing us, it changes the world (and literally).

This is definitely a "verbal dispute" a la Chalmers because this:

"What I'm saying is that abstract conceptions of 'Reality', whether in science, philosophy, or mysticism, do not replace or account for the palpably lived world or constitute escape clauses from it, which philosophy has for the most part recognized from its beginnings."

I can 100% agree with and see no conflict with my position ... My statements above are rhetorical and playful ... But the palpably lived world is the real world I'm talking about.

At some point conceptual thinking comes to an end and we are thrown into the world to do our best with the models we have in mind - We get sick and have pain and we realize our own mortality and we realize we have so much more to work with than concepts, we tune into our bodies and they are always here, now - the mind runs off looking for that escape clause but the body has no choice but to be present for pain or joy ...

Watching our breath we tune into our gut level response before our brain can work it all out ... And we train to stay with that and then modify it, breathing calm or breathing energy as needed but we stay with it, we stay here and we do what needs to be done - we take in stray teenagers (and stray dogs, five at last count) we hold a bed pan for our father in law because no one else will, we watch our children's mistakes and hold our tongues so they'll learn (or we pull a gun on some stupid boy when we know they won't!) and we train women how to defend themselves, getting some bruises along the way ... we worry about the sorry state if the world unto having nightmares about those missiles or about the Concentration Camps we saw (Dachau) and worry about the demonic forces that could lie so at the surface of such a civilized country ...

We give time and money and we do Tonglen - taking and sending, we visualize the dark and gritty the horrific, and we breathe it in, and then we exhale love and compassion - we send whatever we can muster to all sentient beings ...Buddhist monk Pema Chodron says we are to live with the broken heart of the warrior and she teaches the wisdom of "no escape".

The inherent "emptiness" of all phenomena (shunyata) escapes the rigidity of the conceptual mind but it can be grasped when the mind is cool and still ... And it is very far from being nihilistic.

I hope this makes some sense and restores a bit your faith?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

That's a cool idea but it is too abstract to serve, much less satisfy the mind of an existent confronting the actual pressures of his or her {and our} lived reality (e.g., childhood cancer, nuclear missiles online for use at any time; the genetic modification of the earth's food supply; the degradation of the planet's ecology; the continuing exploitation of half the geopolitical world by the other half, etc.). What I'm saying is that abstract conceptions of 'Reality', whether in science, philosophy, or mysticism, do not replace or account for the palpably lived world or constitute escape clauses from it, which philosophy has for the most part recognized from its beginnings. Some viewpoints tread dangerously close to nihilism, e.g.,



What would be the point in continuing this thread then?

I posted the first quote from Strawson because I brought up the idea of dependent origination in the first part of this thread and we didn't get to do much with it, but I think, and its very vague right now, but I think it's possible to make some interesting connections to other ideas about consciousness ... The other part of that quote I see connecting to @Constances post on holism from the monism article at SEP.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Steve wrote: "The inherent "emptiness" of all phenomena (shunyata) escapes the rigidity of the conceptual mind but it can be grasped when the mind is cool and still ... And it is very far from being nihilistic.

I hope this makes some sense and restores a bit your faith?"


I have an enormous amount of faith in the intelligible and shared project of thinking through the phenomena presented by the world as experienced by embodied consciousness and the works of the mind upon and through these phenomena. These phenomena in my opinion are not 'empty' but rather the informative means by which we encounter the actual and thinkable nature of reality, the means by which the world and its structure can in time be understood. The "conceptual mind" is not "rigid" for all thinkers. The presence or absence of 'rigidity' depends on what thinkers think about, the open or closed premises from which they develop their thoughts. Presuppositional thinking, as we saw in discussing Husserl, produces rigid and indeed closed thinking. If we genuinely believe, with Heidegger, that we are always 'on the way' to thinking, our thinking can only be compromised by unsupportable generalizations, whether monistic, dualistic, materialistic, or mystical. As we see in discussions among Chalmers and Goff and other philosphers, and some scientists, concerning the relationship(s) between microphysical and macrophysical 'reality', our understanding of the relation of the mind to the world remains in fact in very early stages. If we take none of this as 'real', assume the world to be 'empty', there's no reason to continue pursuing "a human that can be accounted for," as Wallace Stevens expressed it.

 

[smcder]

Steve wrote: "The inherent "emptiness" of all phenomena (shunyata) escapes the rigidity of the conceptual mind but it can be grasped when the mind is cool and still ... And it is very far from being nihilistic.

I hope this makes some sense and restores a bit your faith?"


I have an enormous amount of faith in the intelligible and shared project of thinking through the phenomena presented by the world as experienced by embodied consciousness and the works of the mind upon and through these phenomena. These phenomena in my opinion are not 'empty' but rather the informative means by which we encounter the actual and thinkable nature of reality, the means by which the world and its structure can in time be understood. The "conceptual mind" is not "rigid" for all thinkers. The presence or absence of 'rigidity' depends on what thinkers think about, the open or closed premises from which they develop their thoughts. Presuppositional thinking, as we saw in discussing Husserl, produces rigid and indeed closed thinking. If we genuinely believe, with Heidegger, that we are always 'on the way' to thinking, our thinking can only be compromised by unsupportable generalizations, whether monistic, dualistic, materialistic, or mystical. As we see in discussions among Chalmers and Goff and other philosphers, and some scientists, concerning the relationship(s) between microphysical and macrophysical 'reality', our understanding of the relation of the mind to the world remains in fact in very early stages. If we take none of this as 'real', assume the world to be 'empty', there's no reason to continue pursuing "a human that can be accounted for," as Wallace Stevens expressed it.

I'm very much in agreement!

Consider my posts over this thread and factor in humor and rhetoric and what my post was in response to - look at my commitments to this world: family, friends, a commitment to seeing things as they are and not turning away from that which breaks my heart: global warming, genocide, mental illness - you don't work long with the homeless and mentally Ill if you have a cavalier attitude regarding reality!

Think about our conversation looking for connections between Buddhism and Existentialism - I just posted about existence preceding essence and was just reading an exchange In which you clarified for me:

"Consciousness in Sartre is not 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness'. It is the recognition of the difference between itself {the for-itself} and what-is beyond itself {the in-itself}, which appears to us in phenomena and our perspectives on phenomena. That we encounter the world through phenomenal appearances does not signify that we have only illusory contact with the things we see phenomenally. Indeed, the being of phenomena opens up for us the recognition of the reality of being<Being behind phenomena and simultaneously the reality of our own being, which we do know upon thorough examination of our conscious experience.

Existentialism recognizes that within this structure of reality, lacking a guaranteed, given, meaning from 'beyond' our existence, the task laid upon consciousness, the for-itself, is the generation of meaning in the lived world. Thus Sartre and MP engaged deeply in the struggles against fascism and economic injustice unfolding in the world they lived in in the 30s and 40s and beyond. Existentialism is a Humanism (the title of a key essay by Sartre), founding existentialist ethics in the authenticity of the individual who recognizes the claims of other subjectivities upon us. 'Bad faith' in Sartre is the fear, the flight from, the denial of the difficulty of taking the human situation upon ourselves in responsible behavior toward others."


"Emptiness" - really is a bad translation of shunyata ... I suspect it comes from the 50s-60s west coast culture where Buddhism came into this country.

And remember, I'm not a Buddhist - meditation has been enormously helpful (fewer holes in walks and doors) to me and many of the practices and principles make a lot of sense.

In terms of rigidity - that's not a knock on conceptual thinking - a jazz musician learns all about music and then let's it go to improvise but this can only happen when he masters a conceptual system - in meditation one moves back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation - you take the object of analysis apart with the conceptual mind and when insight arises you focus on that insight in order to "stabilize" your conception ... Arthur Zajonc and others use a similar approach.

So "conceptual mind" here seems to be a technical term ... In terms of the shared philosophical project of consciousness; mind to world and macro physical to micro physical this is what conceptual thinking does and it's what we need to understand and possibly save the world, there's no substitute ... The concept of Shunyata the experience of it, as far as I know starts in the non-conceptual mind and it's result is compassion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

I'm very much in agreement!

Consider my posts over this thread and factor in humor and rhetoric and what my post was in response to - look at my commitments to this world: family, friends, a commitment to seeing things as they are and not turning away from that which breaks my heart: global warming, genocide, mental illness - you don't work long with the homeless and mentally Ill if you have a cavalier attitude regarding reality!

Think about our conversation looking for connections between Buddhism and Existentialism - I just posted about existence preceding essence and was just reading an exchange In which you clarified for me:

"Consciousness in Sartre is not 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness'. It is the recognition of the difference between itself {the for-itself} and what-is beyond itself {the in-itself}, which appears to us in phenomena and our perspectives on phenomena. That we encounter the world through phenomenal appearances does not signify that we have only illusory contact with the things we see phenomenally. Indeed, the being of phenomena opens up for us the recognition of the reality of being and [edit] Being behind phenomena and simultaneously the reality of our own being, which we do know upon thorough examination of our conscious experience.

Existentialism recognizes that within this structure of reality, lacking a guaranteed, given, meaning from 'beyond' our existence, the task laid upon consciousness, the for-itself, is the generation of meaning in the lived world. Thus Sartre and MP engaged deeply in the struggles against fascism and economic injustice unfolding in the world they lived in in the 30s and 40s and beyond. Existentialism is a Humanism (the title of a key essay by Sartre), founding existentialist ethics in the authenticity of the individual who recognizes the claims of other subjectivities upon us. 'Bad faith' in Sartre is the fear, the flight from, the denial of the difficulty of taking the human situation upon ourselves in responsible behavior toward others."


"Emptiness" - really is a bad translation of shunyata ... I suspect it comes from the 50s-60s west coast culture where Buddhism came into this country.

And remember, I'm not a Buddhist - meditation has been enormously helpful (fewer holes in walks and doors) to me and many of the practices and principles make a lot of sense.

In terms of rigidity - that's not a knock on conceptual thinking - a jazz musician learns all about music and then let's it go to improvise but this can only happen when he masters a conceptual system - in meditation one moves back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation - you take the object of analysis apart with the conceptual mind and when insight arises you focus on that insight in order to "stabilize" your conception ... Arthur Zajonc and others use a similar approach.

So "conceptual mind" here seems to be a technical term ... In terms of the shared philosophical project of consciousness; mind to world and macro physical to micro physical this is what conceptual thinking does and it's what we need to understand and possibly save the world, there's no substitute ... The concept of Shunyata the experience of it, as far as I know starts in the non-conceptual mind and it's result is compassion.

I don't think you should feel a need to justify your point of view and your reasons for taking it. My critique was of a concept {'the world is empty'} and of grand presuppositions {about the Nature of Reality} in general. It seems that a better translation of "Shunyata" would be helpful.

Re this: "Think about our conversation looking for connections between Buddhism and Existentialism - I just posted about existence preceding essence and was just reading an exchange In which you clarified for me . . . .", I remember saying that the differences are more significant than any similarities, and you've cited the key difference in Husserl's, Heidegger's, Sartre's et al recognition that "existence preceeds essence" ( I would add that this is an unending process for a species still 'on the way to thinking' from the expanding basis of what we can understand as 'existing' in the world/universe/cosmos).

Re this: " in meditation one moves back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation - you take the object of analysis apart with the conceptual mind and when insight arises you focus on that insight in order to "stabilize" your conception ...," I think philosophers, scientists, and even poets experience similar if not the same movement "back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation." The poet I've been reading (and writing about) for thirty years is a primary example of this fluidity of the mind in moving from description and analysis to "sudden illuminations" (a phrase from one of his poems). The question is whether any insight or illumination remains unquestionably complete or valid within the further life of the existing mind. Buddhists and other mystics seem to claim to know, to have arrived at, The Truth. Wallace Stevens asks "Where was it we first heard of the the?" Existentialists and phenomenologists say, like Stevens, "It can never be satisfied the mind, never." They continue, like scientists, attempting to make sense of the plenitude and increasing complexity of that which we encounter and with effort increasingly understand in the world.

 

[smcder]

Interesting comment. A koan upon which to meditate.

Strawson is interesting to watch at this point in the video - he says there are some things which just are wrong - very basic things - knowingly inflicting suffering on another being for example and these are non-physical truths, as mathematical truths are non-physical ... So it's very interesting to watch his face because I think theres a shift when he discusses this in which he seems to be saying, all this complicated reasoning aside, there's some things you just dont do.

If remember Chalmers doesn't include moral truths at this "real" level in his personal instance of the PQTI system ... (With Chalmers, I wonder if it's coincidental that PQTI is an anagram of QTPI?)

This also a good jumping off point to discuss morals and ethics and the consequences of ones philosophical belief or world view - we care as much about how one comes to ones ethical decisions as we do the actual decisions arrived at ... These are things we've not explored much on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Here's Stevens's "Looking Across the Fields and Watching the Birds Fly," which I posted at some point in Part I of this thread and which seems even more appropriate given our recent days' discussions.

"Looking Across the Fields . . . ."

Among the more irritating minor ideas
Of Mr. Homburg during his visits home
To Concord, at the edge of things, was this:

To think away the grass, the trees, the clouds,
Not to transform them into other things,
Is only what the sun does every day,

Until we say to ourselves that there may be
A pensive nature, a mechanical
And slightly detestable operandum, free

From man's ghost, larger and yet a little like,
Without his literature and without his gods . . .
No doubt we live beyond ourselves in air,

In an element that does not do for us,
so well, that which we do for ourselves, too big,
A thing not planned for imagery or belief,

Not one of the masculine myths we used to make,
A transparency through which the swallow weaves,
Without any form or any sense of form,

What we know in what we see, what we feel in what
We hear, what we are, beyond mystic disputation,
In the tumult of integrations out of the sky,

And what we think, a breathing like the wind,
A moving part of a motion, a discovery
Part of a discovery, a change part of a change,

A sharing of color and being part of it.
The afternoon is visibly a source,
Too wide, too irised, to be more than calm,

Too much like thinking to be less than thought,
Obscurest parent, obscurest patriarch,
A daily majesty of meditation,

That comes and goes in silences of its own.
We think, then as the sun shines or does not.
We think as wind skitters on a pond in a field

Or we put mantles on our words because
The same wind, rising and rising, makes a sound
Like the last muting of winter as it ends.

A new scholar replacing an older one reflects
A moment on this fantasia. He seeks
For a human that can be accounted for.

The spirit comes from the body of the world,
Or so Mr. Homburg thought: the body of a world
Whose blunt laws make an affectation of mind,

The mannerism of nature caught in a glass
And there become a spirit's mannerism,
A glass aswarm with things going as far as they can.

 

[smcder]

I don't think you should feel a need to justify your point of view and your reasons for taking it. My critique was of a concept {'the world is empty'} and of grand presuppositions {about the Nature of Reality} in general. It seems that a better translation of "Shunyata" would be helpful.

Re this: "Think about our conversation looking for connections between Buddhism and Existentialism - I just posted about existence preceding essence and was just reading an exchange In which you clarified for me . . . .", I remember saying that the differences are more significant than any similarities, and you've cited the key difference in Husserl's, Heidegger's, Sartre's et al recognition that "existence preceeds essence" ( I would add that this is an unending process for a species still 'on the way to thinking' from the expanding basis of what we can understand as 'existing' in the world/universe/cosmos).

Re this: " in meditation one moves back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation - you take the object of analysis apart with the conceptual mind and when insight arises you focus on that insight in order to "stabilize" your conception ...," I think philosophers, scientists, and even poets experience similar if not the same movement "back and forth between analytic and stabilizing meditation." The poet I've been reading (and writing about) for thirty years is a primary example of this fluidity of the mind in moving from description and analysis to "sudden illuminations" (a phrase from one of his poems). The question is whether any insight or illumination remains unquestionably complete or valid within the further life of the existing mind. Buddhists and other mystics seem to claim to know, to have arrived at, The Truth. Wallace Stevens asks "Where was it we first heard of the the?" Existentialists and phenomenologists say, like Stevens, "It can never be satisfied the mind, never." They continue, like scientists, attempting to make sense of the plenitude and increasing complexity of that which we encounter and with effort increasingly understand in the world.

But I do feel a need to justify (there's no should to emotions - you feel what you feel! That teaching of the Buddhas I do subscribe to) in part because we do care how one arrives at ones values ... That matters - it matters to me that others I respect know this - but also because I want to be known. After this much investment it becomes important that ones interlocutors (hard to find) understand one - not that they need to agree.d

Shunyata is a tricky one ... My understanding of it is partly experiential - but I'll see what I can do.

Yes I remember the differences and they helped me to go on and find other similarities and differences.

I think Buddhists would be the first to say there is nothing special about meditation - that said the various traditions have developed and refined a wide range of techniques and what's interesting about Zajonc is that he saw a possible benefit in applying mindfulness to certain Western intellectual pursuits and that value has been recognized in many other areas ... Thus we have a whole self help category of "Zen and the Art of ..." But also applications to almost every area of human activity - meditation is about coming to understand and develop ones attention. In the case of an accomplished person in any field this may happen naturally, it may be a gift or it could be aided by intentional practice.


"The question is whether any insight or illumination remains unquestionably complete or valid within the further life of the existing mind."

I'm not sure I believe in any unquestionably complete insight or illumination (that just may be an approach to defining Shunyata ... Will think about it) but the results of meditation: insight or compassion for example, become something one uses going forward ... Not a stopping point or self validating result.

"Buddhists and other mystics seem to claim to know, to have arrived at, The Truth."

I don't know that all Buddhists are mystics or that all mystics claim (T)ruth - but you could probably lop off whatever remains outside this cover without a fatal loss of blood ... the mystical branch may serve to moderate dogmatism in a religion by supplying new insight - the state and status of a religions mystics will tell you much about its health.

Union with God, union with all -,oceanic consciousness, there are many paths or goals in mysticism as I understand it - Underhill's Mysticism and Huxleys Perennial Philosophy are good primers. I'm sure some where rather insufferable while others were quite charming.

Part of what has attracted many Westerners to the latest instantiation of Buddhism are similar sensibilities that you express and a wariness of Truth claims of all social institutions but particularly religion - Buddhism is adaptive and pragmatic and responds to these concerns in a variety of ways - but there are those claims the Buddha specifically remained agnostic about.

I'll post that. He refused to answer these questions and indicated that contemplation of them led one away from the cessation of suffering which was the Buddhas sole aim: the understanding and cessation of suffering.

So that the highest value of Buddhism is the truth of suffering and it's cessation is undeniable and on this the Buddha did claim to know the truth, four noble truths in fact - but the other things he, if he knew he didn't say.

One thing to note the Buddha did not say life is suffering that may be the key to much misunderstanding at least in the popular mindset.

"It can never be satisfied the mind, never."

The Buddha would agree with this.


"They continue, like scientists, attempting to make sense of the plenitude and increasing complexity of that which we encounter and with effort increasingly understand in the world."

I do wonder sometimes if the history of knowledge is progressive or if we obscure as much as we reveal in our search - and is thus quest innate or recent?

In respect to its possibilities and in partial agreement I don't identify as a Buddhist or monist or existentialist, refusing to identify though has been a life long project for me ... ;-) and it's cost me a bit - But in the end I think to be anything limits what we most are in potential.

That said, my spiritual model is Ishmael, Melville's polytheist who wisely recognizes the primacy of "mood" in religious life. And who's blind weaver God represents another aspect of Shunyata.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Sunyata - sorry, mispelled it ...

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya

Here are the questions:

'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,'

'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,'

'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,'

'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,'

'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,'

'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' —

It's a short Sutta, and reading it gives a flavor of readying Buddhist texts ... but here's the gist of it:

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

and here are The Four Noble Truths:

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

There is also the simile of the arrow, in which the Buddha says asking these question is like coming on a man with an arrow sticking in him who won't accept any help until he knows where the arrow came from, what it is made of, what kind of bow it was shot from, etc etc ... so much of what we do on this forum the Buddha would liken to asking questions about the arrows sticking out of us ... papañca!

I certainly think it feels that way sometimes!

 

[smcder]

Here's Stevens's "Looking Across the Fields and Watching the Birds Fly," which I posted at some point in Part I of this thread and which seems even more appropriate given our recent days' discussions.

"Looking Across the Fields . . . ."

Among the more irritating minor ideas
Of Mr. Homburg during his visits home
To Concord, at the edge of things, was this:

To think away the grass, the trees, the clouds,
Not to transform them into other things,
Is only what the sun does every day,

Until we say to ourselves that there may be
A pensive nature, a mechanical
And slightly detestable operandum, free

From man's ghost, larger and yet a little like,
Without his literature and without his gods . . .
No doubt we live beyond ourselves in air,

In an element that does not do for us,
so well, that which we do for ourselves, too big,
A thing not planned for imagery or belief,

Not one of the masculine myths we used to make,
A transparency through which the swallow weaves,
Without any form or any sense of form,

What we know in what we see, what we feel in what
We hear, what we are, beyond mystic disputation,
In the tumult of integrations out of the sky,

And what we think, a breathing like the wind,
A moving part of a motion, a discovery
Part of a discovery, a change part of a change,

A sharing of color and being part of it.
The afternoon is visibly a source,
Too wide, too irised, to be more than calm,

Too much like thinking to be less than thought,
Obscurest parent, obscurest patriarch,
A daily majesty of meditation,

That comes and goes in silences of its own.
We think, then as the sun shines or does not.
We think as wind skitters on a pond in a field

Or we put mantles on our words because
The same wind, rising and rising, makes a sound
Like the last muting of winter as it ends.

A new scholar replacing an older one reflects
A moment on this fantasia. He seeks
For a human that can be accounted for.

The spirit comes from the body of the world,
Or so Mr. Homburg thought: the body of a world
Whose blunt laws make an affectation of mind,

The mannerism of nature caught in a glass
And there become a spirit's mannerism,
A glass aswarm with things going as far as they can.

I want to learn to read, no to appreciate poetry, I do think something has happened to my reading ability in general over the past few years ... I listened to lots of audio material while commuting, and it may just be that I am more of an auditory learner, but I think I have always struggled with reading ... coincidentally I downloaded a large number of short poems by Wallace Stevens from Libriovox the other day.

The poems I've heard an author read have been very helpful, there are some recordings of Stevens out there I think ... but I think also memorizing and reciting poems might help me get into it more ... something I've done very little of -