Re: [epistemology 0] Digest for epistemology@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 1 Topic

[Hem Joshi]

the feelings of love is one of the most tender, soft and warm emotion in all the living beings. Since time immemorial its a great subject of discussion amongst the human beings. Several times I wonder about the source of its origin. From where it originates and how far it effects out lives.   

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, <episte...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics

• Different points of view. [3 Updates]

 Topic: Different points of view.

archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> Nov 30 03:29AM -0800

 
Good form Georges - shall I now accuse you of being in denial so we
can kill some more trees wondering why that isn't science? We tend to
write Curate's Eggs.
 
There is a serious point for me in wondering how what we can know of
science 'translates' into much more ordinary thinking that generally
leads much less conclusively to experiment. Something has to be
better than Nazi and Soviet Paradise or the dumb-irrational quasi-
capitalism that is, despite being so obviously flawed. Your notion
that words 'hint' is a good one, somewhat belied by your tendency to
silence others (though for god's sake some need a sock in the mouth)!
 


 

nominal9 <nomi...@yahoo.com> Nov 30 08:22AM -0800

 
Emptiness merely means the
truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought
arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If
they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it
is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related
directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all
identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’.
 
 
There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is
the absolute/objective ‘mind’.
 
 
And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too.
 
 
On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to
western
thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical
views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find
themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to
understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no
‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual
ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their
thinking…but not in any other way. / ornamentalmind
 
Now this has some meat to it, Orn,... but I wonder if you aren't
making some sort of mistake in the way that you "posit" or define the
word-term "mind" in the one case as opposed to the other what you call
the distinction between .... relative/subjective 'mind' as
distinguished from absolute/objective "mind"?
Is a person of "two minds" (I ask in pun)?.... Now, considering the
little that I do know about contemplative or meditative philosophies
(Little, I said).....Where do the two "minds" reside?... Is the
relative/subjective 'mind' particular and peculiar to the single
person? But is the absolute/objective 'mind' somehow "outside" the
person (if northing else in the sense of having an existence or a
status apart from the particular and peculiar single person? Is the
absolute/ objective mind a "state of consciousness that the mind has
to attain... go to, to use a spatial term?
 
I have to say, in warning... whenever I hear anyone say "objective
mind" I pretty much automatically think, "phenomenologist"... my
personal bane, althiough it is an "epistemological option up to each
individual.s "choice" to decide.
 
A little disjointed as to sequence but... to get back to the relative/
subjective mind... can it "exist" (in the sense of function, if
nothing else) in the absence of those exrternal "stimuli" from
"something" external to it?... what's the separation point or the"cut-
off" betwen the outside "thing" and the stimulus to the senses or
otherwise...( intellect or emotion, as examples of otherwise). In
consequence... are all such relative/subjective "thoughts" part of the
mind or are they ONLY "specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation" (your
words)?... I hope you see where I'm going with this... if my relative/
sibjective thoughts of an "outside" thing are part and parcel of the
said "thing"... then any "mistakes" I may have in my understanding of
the said thing are because the thing "Lied" to me????
nominal9
 


 

ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> Nov 30 08:50AM -0800

 
“Now this has some meat to it, Orn,...” – nom
 
Thanks.
 
“… but I wonder if you aren't making some sort of mistake in the way
that you "posit" or define the word-term "mind" in the one case as
opposed to the other what you call the distinction between ....
relative/subjective 'mind' as distinguished from absolute/objective
"mind"?” – nom
 
First, I wish to give a philosopher, Ichazo, full credit for this
philosophy of 3 minds including the specific terms. I have studied him
for many years now and personally find that his analysis here is spot
on. So, it is not my positing, just my recognition of the truth of his
independent and original work.
 
This said, I find no mistake in the core integral philosophy.
 
You continued with specific questions, some of which I’m not sure I
can clarify. As to inside/outside, consciousness itself is neither.
Consciousness is one. Here I will conflate what is a pure presentation
by an analogy with what little I know about the Buddhist Mind Only
schools. It is a very similar view.
 
Now as to attainment, your questions do follow my partial
presentation. I did list two minds, the relative and the absolute.
What may clarify most of your questions including the apparent duality
is that there is a 3rd mind in this philosophy along with a coherent
praxis of so achieving. This is the ornamental mind. (Ichazo) This
mind is the union of the relative and the absolute, consubstantially.
 
In a nutshell, that is it. And, rather than address your valid
questions that were based on my partial presentation last time, I’ll
await your intake of the complete thing.
 
 


 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

--
with regards,


Hem Joshi

http://sites.google.com/site/joshygfamily/