Ralph Waldo Emerson
D. Schlenk
(quoted from: the Over-Soul, Essays, First Series (1841)
The reason, why I chose this American writer and philosopher is as
follows: I asked aunt google what is meant by "a noiseless patient
spider" (=name of an organization that has to do with my newsserver)
and in the end I became acquainted with R. W. Emerson whom up to this
point I only knew by his name. This person confirms (more or less) all
that I believe in.
extracted from the Over-Soul, Essays, First Series, google books
(original book text):
One mode of the divine teaching is the incarnation of the spirit in a
form, — in forms, like my own. I live in society; with persons who
answer to thoughts in my own mind, or express a certain obedience to the
great instincts to which I live. I see its presence to them. I am
certified of a common nature ; and these other souls, these separated
selves, draw me as nothing else can. They stir in me the new emotions we
call passion ; of love, hatred, fear, admiration, pity ; thence comes
conversation, competition, persuasion, cities, and war. Persons are
supplementary to the primary teaching of the soul. In youth we are mad
for persons. Childhood and youth see all the world in them. But the
larger experience of man discovers the identical nature appearing
through them all. Persons themselves acquaint us with the impersonal. In
all conversation between two persons, tacit reference is made, as to a
third party, to a common nature. That third party or common nature is
not social; it is impersonal ; is God. And so in groups where debate is
earnest, and especially on high questions, the company become aware that
the thought rises to an equal level in all bosoms, that all have a
spiritual property in what was said, as well as the sayer. They all
become wiser than they were. It arches over them like a temple, this
unity of thought, in which every heart beats with nobler sense of power
and duty, and thinks and acts with unusual solemnity. All are conscious
of attaining to a higher self-possession. It shines for all. There is a
certain wisdom of humanity which is common to the greatest men with the
lowest, and which our ordinary education often labors to silence and
obstruct. The mind is one, and the best minds, who love truth for its
own sake, think much less of property in truth. They accept it
thankfully everywhere, and do not
label or stamp it with any man's name, for it is theirs long beforehand,
and from eternity. The learned and the studious of thought have no
monopoly of wisdom. Their violence of direction in some degree
disqualifies them to think truly. We owe many valuable observations to
people who are not very acute or profound, and who say the thing without
effort, which we want and have long been hunting in vain. The action of
the soul is oftener in that which is felt and left unsaid, than in that
which is said in any conversation. It broods over every society, and
they unconsciously seek for it in each other. We know better than we do.
We do not yet possess ourselves, and we know at the same time that we
are much more. I feel the same truth how often in my trivial
conversation with my neighbours, that somewhat higher in each of us
overlooks this by-play, and Jove nods to Jove from behind each of us.
Men descend to meet. In their habitual and mean service to the world,
for which they forsake their native nobleness, they resemble these
Arabian sheiks, who dwell in mean houses, and affect an external
poverty, to escape the rapacity of the Pacha, and reserve all their
display of wealth for their interior and guarded retirements.
As it is present in all persons, so it is in every period of life. It is
adult already in the infant man. In my dealing with my child, my Latin
and Greek, my accomplishments and my money stead me nothing ; but as
much soul as I have avails. If I am wilful, he sets his will against
mine, one for one, and leaves me, if I please, the degradation of
beating him by my superiority of strength. But if I renounce my will,
and act for the soul, setting that up as umpire between us two, out of
his young eyes looks the same soul; he reveres and loves with me.
The soul is the perceiver and revealer of truth. We know truth when we
see it, let skeptic and scoffer say what they choose. Foolish people ask
you, when you have spoken what they do not wish to hear, ' How do you
know it is truth, and not an error of your own ?' We know truth when we
see it, from opinion, as we know when we are awake that we are awake. It
was a grand sentence of Emanuel Swedenborg, which would alone indicate
the greatness of that man's perception, — " It is no proof of a man's
understanding to be able to confirm whatever he pleases ; but to be able
to discern that what is true is true, and that what is false is false,
this is the mark and character of intelligence." In the book I read, the
good thought returns to me, as every truth will, the image of the whole
soul. To the bad thought which I find in it, the same soul becomes a
discerning, separating sword, and lops it away. We are wiser than we
know. If we will not interfere with our thought, but will act entirely,
or see how the thing stands in God, we know the particular thing, and
every tiling, and every man. For the Maker of all things and all persons
stands behind us, and casts his dread omniscience through us over things.
But beyond this recognition of its own in particular passages of the
individual's experience, it also reveals truth. And here we should seek
to reinforce ourselves by its very presence, and to speak with a
worthier, loftier strain of that advent. For the soul's communication of
truth is the highest event in nature, since it then does not give
somewhat from itself, but it gives itself, or passes into and becomes
that man whom it enlightens; or, in proportion to that truth he
receives, it takes him to itself.
Jigme Dorje
D.Schlenk
"Jigme Dorje" <jigme.d...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> What soul?
You mean >>there is only an over-soul<< ???
Jigme Dorje
> "Jigme Dorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...> What soul?
>
> You mean >>there is only an over-soul<< ???
No, I did not say that. I am pointing out that Emerson makes the
empirical observation that there is a a sense of commonality in
sympathetic social communication, but commits a logical fallacy in
positing theoretical entities of soul and over-soul to extrapolates
the following false syllogism:
a. People occasionally share a common idea or sympathetic thought;
b. The more people who share in an idea, the more likely it is to be
"true";
c. Commonality of thought can only be explained as the result of
individuals tapping into "absolute truth".
d. Therefore individuals have "souls" that are connected through an
"over-soul," and may therefore access "absolute truth."
The concepts of "absolute truth," "soul," and "over-soul" are embedded
in the assumptions as though they were proven facts. This is circular
logic and amounts to no more than an assertion of personal belief.
Emerson is no logician.
D.Schlenk
Well, then, be it like you said.
Evelyn
news:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> What soul?
Hi Jigme!
I am so glad to see you posting here!
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
DharmaTroll
> On Sep 15, 4:34 am, "D.Schlenk" <detmarschl...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>
> > "Jigme Dorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...> What soul?
>
> > You mean >>there is only an over-soul<< ???
>
> No, I did not say that. I am pointing out that Emerson makes the
> empirical observation that there is a a sense of commonality in
> sympathetic social communication, but commits a logical fallacy
Yeah, you nailed it, Jigme! And welcome back to usenet hell.
Two points. One is that Emerson's question-begging or assumption is
common today; it resembles not just one of the metaphysical positions
the Buddha rejected (Brahmanism) but it's contemporary New Age
Californian form, call it Hot-Dog-ism (you know, you go to the hot dog
vendor and say, "make me one with everything".
The other is that the Buddha actually did reject this view of either
soul or over-soul. Yeah, later Buddhist schools snuck some of that
speculative metaphysics in the back door again, and Hindus claim that
Buddhism really is saying the same thing as Hinduism in the end, but
that's not what the Buddha taught, from my studying, even though it's
perfectly fine for those who find the term and concept useful in their
spirituality.
The Short Fat Guy himself said, "N'etam mama n'eso'ham-asmi na meso
attati". Of course, the "Netam mama" part translate as "So's yo mama"
in reply to annoying Brahmanists. Well, actually, I think it means
something like, "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am." It's from one of his early albums, the Anatta-lakkhana
Sutta.
What is denied is a mysterious entity, spirit, spookie, whatever, that
owns each of the aggregates that make up the empirical everyday
'person' we know. He also denies a 'Big-Self' or Over-Soul or
whatever. And we have to keep in mind that he's doing the Middle-Path
dance here, as you have eternalists positing a soul or over-soul or
whatever that exists eternally after death, and you have the
annihilists who deny psycho-physical continuity at all (they weren't
like moderns who see physics as the basis of reality -- 'materialists'
were hedonists, in the sense of grasping at material sense-pleasure as
a way to happiness).
Unlike Descartes, who posited a soul/consciousness distinct from a
body, the Buddha never discussed the psychic and physical separately,
only as the experienced 'namarupa': there was no 'physical stuff' and
'mental stuff' as there was for Descartes (and thus most of us, as the
Cartesian view is the common sense view we all grew up with). The
Buddha didn't posit either of these separate kinds of 'stuff', because
they are both the results of reductive analysis that go beyond
experience. And thus the Buddha wisely and purposefully avoided the
mistake that both his predecessors and, as you point out, Emerson,
make, as the Buddha was a rather radical empiricist and refused to
speculate on what was not found in experience. Which is one reason I
like the Short Fat Guy.
So what do think, Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back into
-- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd talking
the bullshit and playing head games."
--DharmaTroll (The Original)
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> So what do think, Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back into
> -- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd talking
> the bullshit and playing head games."
>
> --DharmaTroll (The Original)
No, you've changed some.... same package, fresher rhetoric ...
/leebert
Jigme Dorje
Quite a reunion here. It's been what 15 years? Leebert, Tang,
DharmaTroll, Ev -all still in good form I see. Somehow I doubt that
anybody's playing the same old head games - after 15 years of practice
surely we're all past that now,
Astral Hereticus
Does Practice of imperfection make perfect?
Jigme Dorje
I think is that it all depends on what version of Buddha you choose to
believe in. Of course, to believe in any of them implies suspension of
disbelief at least, abject faith at the extreme.
As I recall, you, I and Tang all shared a common preference for the
earliest source materials - the Pali Sutras - or the Chinese pieces
that Tang did such a brilliant job of translating and interpreting.
In the final analysis, that's still a personal preference, and could
turn out to be merely a form of attachment to name & form, ego and
indulgence. But surely our individual practices are by now road
tested and less academic.
What do I think? Rather than venture to characterize the Buddha as
empiricist who refused to speculate on what was not found in
experience, I will simply respond that this is fairly consistent with
my limited understanding of what the Pali Sutras appear to represent
about the system of contemplation that is credited to Gotama Buddha.
Jigme (The Original)
Jigme Dorje
wrote:
food for thought
or
grist for the mill?
Jigme Dorje
> "Jigme Dorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What soul?
>
> Hi Jigme!
>
> I am so glad to see you posting here!
> --
>
> Evelyn
Same here.Not here to become entrenched, however.
possum
don't worry. the reel jigme always carries an entrenchment tool.
Jigme Dorje
That line has a good hook!
zenworm
Keynes
Evelyn
****************
For the sake of you guys, I am willing to play a little.......:-)
It is fun to all be on usenet again!
Evelyn
news:f6e036d5-8dc6-41e2...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Everything is already perfect just as it is.
Nobody in Particular
> "Astral Hereticus" <astralh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f6e036d5-8dc6-41e2...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 15, 9:40 pm, Jigme Dorje <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 7:21 pm, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>>>
>>> <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sep 15, 7:11 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > So what do think, Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back
>>> > > into
>>> > > -- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd
>>> > > talking the bullshit and playing head games."
>>>
>>> > > --DharmaTroll (The Original)
>>>
>>> > No, you've changed some.... same package, fresher rhetoric ...
>>>
>>> > /leebert
>>>
>>> Quite a reunion here. It's been what 15 years? Leebert, Tang,
>>> DharmaTroll, Ev -all still in good form I see. Somehow I doubt that
>>> anybody's playing the same old head games - after 15 years of practice
>>> surely we're all past that now,
>>
>> Does Practice of imperfection make perfect?
>
>
>
> Everything is already perfect just as it is.
I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent.
-- Mae West
D. Schlenk
empirical. Do you really think that by being logic you can mentally
understand transcendence which is something beyond your simple means of
grasping reality (words, theories, logic)?
Emerson is a transcendentalist. He thinks that you can find God amongst
other "things" in free nature. What do people find so attractive about
nature? It is your own (your personal) being conscious that you are part
of nature, and there are moments in which being part of it becomes even
more overwhelming to you than the rest of your time: then you are close
to God. I could give you examples of my own experience.
s.t
a cyklop with four eyes
Jigme Dorje
>
> - Show quoted text -
No thank you, that won't be necessary, kind sir; we all have our own
experiences. Logic and empiricism are not dichotomous.- one has both
of them, but need not have one trip all over the other. As a
transcendentalist, Emerson was unable to achieve a balance of the two,
and jettisoned one for the other. He found it more convenient to
impute than to settle into experience. Thus, he felt the need to
transcend.
But then, all of us have our faults.
zenworm
four eyes still see the same Moment
relaxing and being present
ZN :D
s.t
If you see the Moment, it is not the Moment
D.C.
^@%>---*=#**
"s.t" <_cl...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:84dacd97-2b7e-4269...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
true. they say that there is a one 10,000th
of a second between something occurring
and your conscious awareness of it.
Evelyn
news:h8pplj$kn1$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Definitely!
zenworm
*you*less
s.t
four dyslectic I´s rolling anti clock wise...
Keynes
This is a point of view that places experience
into the never never of non-experience, putting
the cart before the horse. Looks like a fatal
misdirection.
^@%>---*=#**
eye of newt moebius hologram
^@%>---*=#**
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:kh02b5tkfb9eoh4is...@4ax.com...
hang on. it's going to take me
one 10,000th of a second to
read your post.
s.t
"
The monkey is reaching
For the moon in the water.
Until death overtakes him
He'll never give up.
If he'd let go the branch and
Disappear in the deep pool,
The whole world would shine
With dazzling pureness.
Hakuin "
Keynes
Sounds like a serious disability.
Why don't you just mosey into the past
and give yourself a little kick in the ass?
^@%>---*=#**
hang on. another one 10,000th
coming right up.
Keynes
Yet another episode of 'Lost in Space'.
Will I wait for you to catch up?
No time for that --
DharmaTroll
"They" are mistaken.
It's actually about 1/10th of a second.
This was demonstrated by the wise sage Changizi.
No, not some ancient Taoist dude -- I mean Dr. Mark Changizi at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Changizi argues that the brain’s
adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
illusions.
It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
model visual information, it is working with old information. By
modeling the future during movement, it is “seeing” the present.
Dr. Changizi and his colleagues hold that it is a general principle
the brain applies to a wide variety of illusions that trick the brain
into sensing motion.
For those with philosophical or spiritual leanings, it means that not
only are all of our experiences created by the brain, but they are
actually guesses about the future state of the world, which constantly
get corrected by new sense-data. I can catch a football or brake for a
puppy even though my brain is so slow to process the data from my eyes
because I create a virtual reality simulation of what's going to
happen next. And this simulation is revealed only when we present
things like optical illusions which trick me into guessing the wrong
near-future scenario.
Is that awesome or what? Read more at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=understanding-how-our-bra
--DharmaTroll
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:14c433c7-320d-407c...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Changizi argues that the brain�s
adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
illusions.
It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
model visual information, it is working with old information. By
modeling the future during movement, it is �seeing� the present.
Dr. Changizi and his colleagues hold that it is a general principle
the brain applies to a wide variety of illusions that trick the brain
into sensing motion.
For those with philosophical or spiritual leanings, it means that not
only are all of our experiences created by the brain, but they are
actually guesses about the future state of the world, which constantly
get corrected by new sense-data. I can catch a football or brake for a
puppy even though my brain is so slow to process the data from my eyes
because I create a virtual reality simulation of what's going to
happen next. And this simulation is revealed only when we present
things like optical illusions which trick me into guessing the wrong
near-future scenario.
Is that awesome or what? Read more at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=understanding-how-our-bra
--DharmaTroll
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
it was dr. david hawkins who proposed the
one 10,000th of a second theory but how
would 1/10 of a second coincide time wise
with dr. stephen lewinsky's notion that the
universe dissolves and reforms 17 times a
second ?
Keynes
wrote:
I fiddle with video.
Film motion has been at 24/frames per second.
Animation has been at 12/fps. US CRT video goes
at 30/fps. (Europe at 25/fps.) A function alternating
current.
I do video at 15/fps which works nicely for motions
that don't sweep across the screen. I suspect that all
video would be satisfactory as some number under 20/fps.
Which means that we may see using that speed - 1/20 sec.
(Faster than 1/10.)
Optical illusions are how we've learned to visually make
sense of space. A photograph is monocular, but we see
with binocular eyes, expanding the spacial-visual field at
least in our minds if not in physical space. That's why
photos seem so pinched and unreal sometimes.
But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
daletx
> adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
> illusions.
>
> It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
> to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
> functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
> illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
> brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
> world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
> on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
> both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
> system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
> left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
> motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
> system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
> perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
>
> In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
> pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
> the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
> the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
> evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
> motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
> model visual information, it is working with old information. By
>
> Dr. Changizi and his colleagues hold that it is a general principle
> the brain applies to a wide variety of illusions that trick the brain
> into sensing motion.
>
> For those with philosophical or spiritual leanings, it means that not
> only are all of our experiences created by the brain, but they are
> actually guesses about the future state of the world, which constantly
> get corrected by new sense-data. I can catch a football or brake for a
> puppy even though my brain is so slow to process the data from my eyes
> because I create a virtual reality simulation of what's going to
> happen next. And this simulation is revealed only when we present
> things like optical illusions which trick me into guessing the wrong
> near-future scenario.
>
> Is that awesome or what? Read more at:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=understanding-how-our-bra
>
> --DharmaTroll
Interesting article. Interesting the way the URL truncates, too...
DT
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
> illusions.
>
> It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
> to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
> functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
> illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
> brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
> world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
> on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
> both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
> system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
> left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
> motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
> system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
> perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
>
> In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
> pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
> the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
> the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
> evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
> motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
> model visual information, it is working with old information. By
>
> Dr. Changizi and his colleagues hold that it is a general principle
> the brain applies to a wide variety of illusions that trick the brain
> into sensing motion.
>
> For those with philosophical or spiritual leanings, it means that not
> only are all of our experiences created by the brain, but they are
> actually guesses about the future state of the world, which constantly
> get corrected by new sense-data. I can catch a football or brake for a
> puppy even though my brain is so slow to process the data from my eyes
> because I create a virtual reality simulation of what's going to
> happen next. And this simulation is revealed only when we present
> things like optical illusions which trick me into guessing the wrong
> near-future scenario.
>
>
> --DharmaTroll
>
> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
> it was dr. david hawkins who proposed the
> one 10,000th of a second theory but how
> would 1/10 of a second coincide time wise
> with dr. stephen lewinsky's notion that the
> universe dissolves and reforms 17 times a
> second ?
Don't know of David Hawkins' or Stephen Lewinsky's work. I only have
read this cool article on Changizi. The universe dissolving and
reforming even once sounds far-fetched, much less 17 times each
second. If it dissolved, why wouldn't it just stay dissolved? The
universe not dissolving but continuing through time sounds like a much
simpler explanation. In any case, this isn't about the universe, but
about our experience and how our brain creates maps of the universe.
It's a lot like the 'cache' on your computer, which uses super-fast
memory to 'guess' what is going to be asked from the slow memory and
retrieve it ahead of time. As data are generally requested in
sequence, the cached memory is right around 90% of the time, greatly
speeding up your computer. Similarly, it appears that our brains
create fake 'guessed' experiences and that's what we are experiencing
in the moment all the time, but when new sense data travels to the
brain and is interpreted, the images are corrected, and then new
predictions are made.
We all know (except for Keynes, perhaps) that we are experiencing a
'map' of reality created by the brain, and what we call 'real' is a
correct (corresponding) map; whereas what we call hallucination or
dream is an incorrect or nonsensical map, but that all experiences are
maps. This new twist tells us that our maps are also always outdated
by 1/10th of a second, so that our brains guess and fudge the maps to
fit the best guess based on our recent immediate past experience. Wow.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
>
> But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
> without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
> 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
You haven't changed a bit, I see.
The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
altogether magical, mystical, or spooky (or other mumbo-jumbo like
'non-dual') and thus we can't examine it further and understand it any
better, but just accept it as magic, and perhaps it is even proof that
the world doesn't really exist and is all illusion, if you spin it
right.
Imagine Keynes said that about a car, that a car is a car,
unaccountable without needing any dangling explanations. He'd be on
foot as soon as he ran out of gas.
Experience is like a car, except moreso: it's a brain function
involving all sorts of complicated subsystems that work together under
the hood.
Keynes' magic is a STOP sign that signifies the end of thinking or any
intelligent discourse. A car is a holistic, magical unity,
unexplainable, and talk of parts working together under the hood is
blasphemy, the psychosis of a dualistic mind contaminated by that evil
concept of matter.
For those of us who don't like to say "it's magic" and want to look
under the hood and get our hands dirty, cars and experience have lots
of parts that work together. In terms of experience, the limit to the
speed of neural signals in the brain is about 55mph -- the same as the
legal speed limit in most places for cars (ooh, cosmic synchronicity
with that one, dude). With various optical illusions and tests, we can
learn how the inner workings of these brains (rather than metaphysical
magic) create and shape our experiences. I for one, found the 1/10
second gap and the virtual reality we create in order to catch a ball
extremely enchanting and fascinating. For Keynes, again this is
blasphemy, as everything has already been explained ("it's magic") and
nothing further can be said -- that again would only be dualistic
thinking.
Well, I prefer my inquisitiveness to Keynes metaphysical snake oil. In
any event, it's nice to hear from you again, Keynes. And don't forget
to say hi to Harry Potter for me, too.
--DharmaTroll
Lee Rudolph
>Imagine Keynes said that about a car, that a car is a car,
>unaccountable without needing any dangling explanations.
Explanations are the fuzzy dice dangling from the rear-view mirror
of pre-afference.
Lee Rudolph
daletx
>> adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
>> illusions.
>>
>> It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
>> to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
>> functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
>> illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
>> brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
>> world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
>> on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
>> both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
>> system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
>> left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
>> motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
>> system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
>> perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
>>
>> In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
>> pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
>> the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
>> the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
>> evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
>> motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
>> model visual information, it is working with old information. By
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
--Douglas Adams, the great Philosopher, Sage, Luminary and Professional
Thinking Person
DT
(the *other* DT)
Déjà Flu
Think I'll save this rant for Posterity. Know her? She just
recently dumped some pseudonymous videos into Faux-Five's lap.
She occasionally goes by the name of "A-Posteriori", according
his Tangledness.
Well said, usual compliments, etc.
Déjà Flu
Does that make *some people* the bobbing doggie-head on the rear
junk-accumulation tray thingie?
(remember those?)
Déjà Flu
>>> adaptive ability to see into the near future creates many common
>>> illusions.
>>>
>>> It takes time for the brain to process visual information, so it has
>>> to anticipate the future to perceive the present. One common
>>> functional mechanism can explain many of seemingly unrelated optical
>>> illusions. One fundamental debate in visual research is whether the
>>> brain uses a bag of ad hoc tricks to build a streaming model of the
>>> world, or a general principle, like filling in disjointed images based
>>> on inference from new evidence and past experience. The answer may be
>>> both. But perceptual illusions provide a keyhole to glimpse the
>>> system. When shown two images in quick succession, one of a dot on the
>>> left of a screen and one with the dot on the right, the brain sees
>>> motion from left to right, even though there was none. The visual
>>> system has apparently constructed the scenario after it has been
>>> perceived, reconciling the jagged images by imputing motion.
>>>
>>> In an experiment originated by Dr. Nijhawan, people watch an object
>>> pass a flashbulb. The timing is exact: the bulb flashes precisely as
>>> the object passes. But people perceive that the object has moved past
>>> the bulb before it flashes. Scientists argue that the brain has
>>> evolved to see a split second into the future when it perceives
>>> motion. Because it takes the brain at least a tenth of a second to
>>> model visual information, it is working with old information. By
No matter how much I hate Texas and how much I'd really like
to be your neighbor and how much fun we might have, I simply
do *not* have enough ammunition.
Jigme Dorje
You write:"our maps are also always outdated by 1/10th of a second, so
that our brains guess and fudge the maps to fit the best guess based
on our recent immediate past experience."
One of the problems with the "experience, don't examine" point of
view, is that far too many people live unexamined lives, and have not
learned to question the data they receive. Tea party nutters, for
instance, simply accept false data and endulge in the experience of
getting carried up in the rush of the experience of it. Buddhism
teaches people to experience their maps but to stand outside of them
enough to be observant if them and take them with a grain of thought,
to question our experience in order to attempt to see past them and
not get carried away by them. If you do that enough, you can break
through to real experience, but I submit that without the practice,
you won't have the breakthoughs.
An old Korean chan teacher used to say "only don't know," taking up
the kong an of "what is this?" until the seed of doubt pushes you
through the map. But unless you start out on the other side of the
map, you just can't be there unless you continue to punch holes in it.
My belabored point? The theory of just let experience take you like a
windblown leaf works fine if you've already broken through - as Tang
says "crashed" through. But until you get there, you've got to have
some mindfulness.
Anyway, that was my take on it a few seconds before experience blew me
away from this...
possum
> On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
> > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
> > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>
> Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
> You haven't changed a bit, I see.
hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>
> The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
> altogether magical, mystical, or spooky (or other mumbo-jumbo like
> 'non-dual') and thus we can't examine it further and understand it any
> better, but just accept it as magic, and perhaps it is even proof that
> the world doesn't really exist and is all illusion, if you spin it
> right.
examining the counter claim, we see a spinning around familiar labels
'magical' 'mystical', 'spooky' (an old favourite!), mumbo-jumbo, which
are handy little short-hand tools, and useful in appropriate contexts,
but which have the potential, if not critically examined, to mislead
the reader, and the spinner himself...
>
> Imagine Keynes said that about a car, that a car is a car,
> unaccountable without needing any dangling explanations. He'd be on
> foot as soon as he ran out of gas.
but keynes didn't say it about a car. that's a fact. are you doing
your strawman thing again, rascal?
and i can confirm from my own experience that it is possible to drive
a car quite successfully over many years, with minimal understanding
of how the blasted thing works. granted, some essential minimum
knowledge, eg the need for re-fuelling, and flat-battery avoidance is
required, and i admit to acquiring the knowledge that brake-pads
aren't fluffy some years back (but after i had been driving for some
time) and i've picked up a few things, like how to put air in tyres,
and how to turn on the headlamps properly, but the fact remains, that
not only does my car work with my knowing what goes on under the
bonnet, i have also managed to avoid having any serious motor
accidents. mikey, on the other hand, who is a bit of a mechanic, and
knows all sorts of stuff, crashes them all over the place. i've had
to take him off my insurance, he's too expensive. plus, even though i
now know that brake-pads aren't fluffy, that knowledge has provided me
with no practical benefit whatsoever. it made no difference to how i
drive, and i've found no use for it ever. you may speculate that i'd
be stuffed if car mechanics and breakdown rescue bods were to be
vapourised from the face of the world, or if i were driving my car in
ta remote tropical jungle or outer mongolia, and i can't deny it, but
how likely is that to happen?
>
> Experience is like a car, except moreso: it's a brain function
> involving all sorts of complicated subsystems that work together under
> the hood.
experience isn't that complicated. the explanation is.
>
> Keynes' magic is a STOP sign that signifies the end of thinking or any
> intelligent discourse. A car is a holistic, magical unity,
> unexplainable, and talk of parts working together under the hood is
> blasphemy, the psychosis of a dualistic mind contaminated by that evil
> concept of matter.
keynes' zen is keynes' zen. it drives you nuts that he says throw
the texts on the fire, don't it? i know... when there's all that
insatiable curtiosity to be...erm... or avoidance...anyway...
>
> For those of us who don't like to say "it's magic" and want to look
> under the hood and get our hands dirty, cars and experience have lots
> of parts that work together. In terms of experience, the limit to the
> speed of neural signals in the brain is about 55mph -- the same as the
> legal speed limit in most places for cars (ooh, cosmic synchronicity
> with that one, dude). With various optical illusions and tests, we can
> learn how the inner workings of these brains (rather than metaphysical
> magic) create and shape our experiences. I for one, found the 1/10
> second gap and the virtual reality we create in order to catch a ball
> extremely enchanting and fascinating. For Keynes, again this is
> blasphemy, as everything has already been explained ("it's magic") and
> nothing further can be said -- that again would only be dualistic
> thinking.
>
> Well, I prefer my inquisitiveness to Keynes metaphysical snake oil. In
> any event, it's nice to hear from you again, Keynes. And don't forget
> to say hi to Harry Potter for me, too.
i knew i should have gone to bed an hour ago...
you think you prefer your virtue to keynes 'bad' labelling, but how do
you know the thought wasn't planted and you're an ad-man's dream pet?
cheers DT and
g'nite
possum
>
> --DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On 16 Sep, 20:11, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
> > > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
> > > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
> > > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>
> > Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
> > You haven't changed a bit, I see.
>
> hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>
> > The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
> > altogether magical, mystical, or spooky (or other mumbo-jumbo like
> > 'non-dual') and thus we can't examine it further and understand it any
> > better, but just accept it as magic, and perhaps it is even proof that
> > the world doesn't really exist and is all illusion, if you spin it
> > right.
>
> examining the counter claim, we see a spinning around familiar labels
> 'magical' 'mystical', 'spooky' (an old favourite!), mumbo-jumbo, which
> are handy little short-hand tools, and useful in appropriate contexts,
> but which have the potential, if not critically examined, to mislead
No, not here. I could have added the big one, "God". The point is that
none of them have a referent. Just "magic" will do.
This is a case much like the current Creationism/Evolution ruckus.
Instead of a detailed, complex process of mutation and selection over
time, the Creationists say it happens by 'magic', in this case caused
by an omnipotent creator deity.
This is the same kind of case, where I post an article on the physical
process of perception and how the brain works, and instead of an
alternative, a simple 'magic' answer is provided.
The interesting thing about magic is that it needs no further
explanation, and it is a stop command to all further inquiry. "God
did it." "God made it." "It's all an illusion." All these are claims
that can't be disproven, and so are worthless; they are just words
without any meaning, because they don't connect to the world.
> > Imagine Keynes said that about a car, that a car is a car,
> > unaccountable without needing any dangling explanations. He'd be on
> > foot as soon as he ran out of gas.
>
> but keynes didn't say it about a car. that's a fact. are you doing
> your strawman thing again, rascal?
No, not at all. I'm giving a practical analogy of another system where
the whole is greater than the parts. A car moves and stops rather
magically, but when examined, there are reasons, and the car is
actually a complex system of parts. However, if you refused to look
under the hood and simply evoked a singular 'magic' explanation for
the car's movements, you wouldn't have explained anything. You merely
would have explained away and stopped inquiring.
> and i can confirm from my own experience that it is possible to drive
> a car quite successfully over many years, with minimal understanding
> of how the blasted thing works.
All this is beside the point. We could use our brains for thousands of
years without knowing how the work. Hell, we still don't know much
about how they work. That's why this is so exciting, as it's on the
cutting edge.
> not only does my car work with my knowing what goes on under the
> bonnet, i have also managed to avoid having any serious motor
> accidents. mikey, on the other hand, who is a bit of a mechanic, and
> knows all sorts of stuff, crashes them all over the place.
And I can probably use my brain to beat most brain surgeons at chess.
So what?
That's not an argument that perception works by magic and not by
brains.
It's merely a non sequitur.
>
> > Experience is like a car, except moreso: it's a brain function
> > involving all sorts of complicated subsystems that work together under
> > the hood.
>
> experience isn't that complicated. the explanation is.
>
Perception is complicated because brains are complicated. Again,
because our seeing a tree doesn't seem complicated to us doesn't mean
that billions of neurons have to fire in amazingly complex patterns
for that experience to take place. The argument that seeing a tree
feels effortlessly and simple, and therefore the process must be as
well makes no sense. It's from that kind of claim that one then
concludes magic. Note that magic can explain anything. Because magic
can't fail any tests. It always explains whatever happens. Substitute
God or some other term for magic if you wish, the word doesn't matter.
That's my point. All such terms are the same.
> > Keynes' magic is a STOP sign that signifies the end of thinking or any
> > intelligent discourse. A car is a holistic, magical unity,
> > unexplainable, and talk of parts working together under the hood is
> > blasphemy, the psychosis of a dualistic mind contaminated by that evil
> > concept of matter.
>
> keynes' zen is keynes' zen.
No, it's not Zen. It's closer to Creationism or Astrology, but it has
nothing to do with Zen. Except in the Californian sense, where 'zen'
means 'fukkit', etc.
> it drives you nuts that he says throw
> the texts on the fire, don't it?
Cool. The first mind-reading personal attack since my return to usenet
hell. No, I have no emotional reaction, any more than I do to
Creationists when I read about museums with people riding dinosaurs
and simple explanations that throw out all evidence and reasoning in
exchange for magic "God did it 6000 years ago." Same with Keynes. The
particular story doesn't matter. It's still an appeal to magic.
The story you refer to is a teacher passing down his teachings to his
dharma heir, who throws them in the fire. The teacher asks "What are
you doing?" and the student replies "What are you saying?" The idea is
that the teacher is relying on book teachings, whereas the student
knows he must use his own intelligence and spontaneity to continue the
teaching and not just repeat dogma, whereas the teacher has become
attached. An alternative interpretation is that the notebooks were
empty, and the teacher was giving a final test to his student. But the
story has nothing to do with an appeal to magic. Another non sequitur.
> > For those of us who don't like to say "it's magic" and want to look
> > under the hood and get our hands dirty, cars and experience have lots
> > of parts that work together. In terms of experience, the limit to the
> > speed of neural signals in the brain is about 55mph -- the same as the
> > legal speed limit in most places for cars (ooh, cosmic synchronicity
> > with that one, dude). With various optical illusions and tests, we can
> > learn how the inner workings of these brains (rather than metaphysical
> > magic) create and shape our experiences. I for one, found the 1/10
> > second gap and the virtual reality we create in order to catch a ball
> > extremely enchanting and fascinating. For Keynes, again this is
> > blasphemy, as everything has already been explained ("it's magic") and
> > nothing further can be said -- that again would only be dualistic
> > thinking.
>
> > Well, I prefer my inquisitiveness to Keynes metaphysical snake oil. In
> > any event, it's nice to hear from you again, Keynes. And don't forget
> > to say hi to Harry Potter for me, too.
>
> i knew i should have gone to bed an hour ago...
No, I'm glad you posted. It is a good question, and my intentions
weren't clear and I didn't state my point very well.
> you think you prefer your virtue to keynes 'bad' labelling,
Nothing 'bad' about Keynes at all. In my book he's at worst 'silly',
not 'bad' in any way. Look, I have no problem with the Keynes's in
this world as long as their magic is totally divorced from their
experiences. For example, if Keynes believes the world isn't real or
that God is protecting him and he therefore on this basis doesn't wear
a seat belt, or doesn't vaccinate his kids, or thinks that it's evil
for gays to get married, then that's a big problem. AFAIK, Keynes
never has suggested that his magic and anti-realism affects anything
in his experience or daily life, and he probably looks both ways when
he crosses the street even if he pretends that trucks are an illusion,
so therefore it's ok in my book. And maybe not much different from my
obsession with science fiction and vampires, except that I know that
I'm pretending, even though I try to forget while immersed in the
fantasy, as I was when watching the season finale of 'True Blood' a
couple of nights ago. That was awesome.
> but how do you know the thought wasn't planted
> and you're an ad-man's dream pet?
Or even worse, a figment of Jigme's imagination!
I don't know for sure, any more than I don't know that the born-agains
aren't right and that they will be teleported to heaven by Jesus when
the rapture comes, while I burn with the rest of you heathens.
But those scenarios are too unlikely to mean anything practical to me
at all. Much more likely is the scenario that I am 100% physical: that
I am star-stuff forged in the center of real, physical, material stars
four and a half billion years ago. And you know what, that reality
makes me feel more connected to everyone and everything than any made-
up talk of magic or gods or transcendence ever could.
>
> cheers DT and
> g'nite
>
> possum
Thanks for playing, possum.
--DharmaTroll
"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two
conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that
are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new
ideas." -- Carl Sagan
Keynes
wrote:
>On Sep 16, 8:46 pm, possum <jhk00B0Sn3VdC...@spambox.us> wrote:
>> On 16 Sep, 20:11, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
>> > > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
>> > > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>>
>> > Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
>> > You haven't changed a bit, I see.
>>
>> hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>>
>Another familiar old poster! Hi, possum.
>
>> > The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
>> > altogether magical, mystical, or spooky
Not at all. I was saying "In the seen, just the seen".
(Recommended by the Buddha as 'liberation'.)
>> >(or other mumbo-jumbo like 'non-dual')
You don't understand the fallacy of duality?
Where have you been all these years?
<5tln95hcmcmh22vaq...@4ax.com>
Trolley, what are you doing with buddhism? Seriously.
You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of it
nor interest in it. You rant like a total anti-buddhist.
With 'right-at-you speech' and all the other anti-virtues.
(If you want folks to think you're smart, why not act smart?)
>> >and thus we can't examine it further and understand it any
>> > better, but just accept it as magic, and perhaps it is even proof that
>> > the world doesn't really exist and is all illusion, if you spin it
>> > right.
>>
The buddha mentioned delusion a few times.
What do you suppose he meant?
You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder.
(Or is that your head?) You come on like Mr.Wizard
in buddhist NGs, and when someone brings up dharma
you completely lose control of your bowels.
I don't mind conversing with you, but you are devious,
untruthful, and unnecessarily insulting. (But I bet your
parents think you're cute.) I'm sure you're totally unaware
of what you're saying and doing, but that's no excuse in
this particular forum. (Where occasional flashes of
mindfulness and honesty may appear suddenly.)
What's your game? What's your aim? What's your hat size?
And do they actually make them that big?
Wash out your mouth if you say 'science know all'.
This certainly ain't the place for it.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> On Sep 15, 7:21 pm, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > So what do think,Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back into
> > > -- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd talking
> > > the bullshit and playing head games."
>
> > > --DharmaTroll (TheOriginal)
>
> > No, you've changed some.... same package, fresher rhetoric ...
>
> > /leebert
>
> Quite a reunion here. It's been what 15 years? Leebert, Tang,
> DharmaTroll, Ev -all still in good form I see. Somehow I doubt that
> anybody's playing the same old head games - after 15
> years of practice surely we're all past that now,
Indeed.
Not the original, but an exact replica.
A bad habit turned good?
/leebert
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> "JigmeDorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8ff9e985-cbb0-4d92...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 7:21 pm, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 7:11 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > So what do think,Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back into
> > > -- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd talking
> > > the bullshit and playing head games."
>
> > > --DharmaTroll (TheOriginal)
>
> > No, you've changed some.... same package, fresher rhetoric ...
>
> > /leebert
>
> Quite a reunion here. It's been what 15 years? Leebert, Tang,
> DharmaTroll, Ev -all still in good form I see. Somehow I doubt that
> anybody's playing the same old head games - after 15 years of practice
> surely we're all past that now,
>
>
> For the sake of you guys, I am willing to play a little.......:-)
> It is fun to all be on usenet again!
>
(Ev waxes nostalgic ... :-)
I think my first fun w/ DharmaTroll was nailing him for Star Trek
mythos fandom when at the same time he was roasting Punnadhammo (?)
for superstitious beliefs. His reaction was delightful.
/leebert
Evelyn
message
news:033fcf09-4f60-4454...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
/leebert
****************
Everyone has at one time or another been roasted by DT, including me. But
he does tend to make one think, and he is articulate, entertaining, and
clever and fun to read.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:56:23 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 16, 8:46 pm, possum <jhk00B0Sn3VdC...@spambox.us> wrote:
> >> On 16 Sep, 20:11, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
> >> > > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
> >> > > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>
> >> > Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
> >> > You haven't changed a bit, I see.
>
> >> hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>
> >Another familiar old poster! Hi, possum.
>
> >> > The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
> >> > altogether magical, mystical, or spooky
>
> Not at all. I was saying "In the seen, just the seen".
> (Recommended by the Buddha as 'liberation'.)
>
No, you were not. That has to do with liking, disliking, and
emotional, conditioned baggage we add to experience. You were denying
the physical hardware of eyes and brains that deal with perception,
and possibly denying all of reality.
I remember this! More nostalgia! You use to play the knights & knaves
game, as I recall. Knaves, in these logic puzzles, always said the
opposite of whatever was true. You'd go out of your way to make sure
just about every single sentence was false in your posts.
> >> >(or other mumbo-jumbo like 'non-dual')
>
> You don't understand the fallacy of duality?
> Where have you been all these years?
Oh I understand your superstitions.
> Trolley, what are you doing with buddhism? Seriously.
> You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of it
> nor interest in it. You rant like a total anti-buddhist.
Yes, just the opposite!
> You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder.
> (Or is that your head?) You come on like Mr.Wizard
> in buddhist NGs, and when someone brings up dharma
> you completely lose control of your bowels.
Nice insults. Too bad you didn't mention dharma or equate your endless
metaphysical speculations with it.
> I don't mind conversing with you, but you are devious,
> untruthful, and unnecessarily insulting.
Yes, just the opposite!
> (But I bet your parents think you're cute.)
There you are wrong. My parents were indeed somewhat attractive.
> What's your game? What's your aim? What's your hat size?
> And do they actually make them that big?
You lost it with the gibberish questions. Better to stay in form and
just say the negations of truths, Keynes.
> Wash out your mouth if you say 'science know all'.
> This certainly ain't the place for it.
Yes, just the opposite! Science leads one to realize that one doesn't
know, and only can conditionally accept rough and dirty models which
may be replaced tomorrow. Religious conviction, such as twisted misuse
of terms like 'non-dualism' and pretending that cats, trees, rocks,
and stars -- and even brains -- don't exist, leads to rigid closed-
loop thinking, which is impervious to any change and which can't be
disproven. Well, you've created your hell, so live in it.
And keep up the contradictions and insults! I wouldn't want it any
other way. It's nostalgic. Glad to see that you haven't changed a bit,
Keynes. And I hope you did remember to say hi to Harry Potter for me.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "luchayana superfly del pseudomodo" <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:033fcf09-4f60-4454...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
I miss Punnadhammo the most, Evelyn. While I disagreed about accepting
hard karma and reincarnation across lifetimes on blind faith, I have
the opposite problem today. At weekly Buddhist gatherings and
retreats, so many people who do Buddhism want to ignore the sutras and
say "oh the Buddha didn't believe in any of that karma or
reincarnation stuff, and besides, if there is no self, you can't be
reborn, and the Buddha couldn't have been that stupid to claim both --
he just meant 'bad habits' by karma, just as I do." Yes, folks say
such idiotic things. I think it's important that people study the
suttas and understand the Buddha's teachings, and what he meant and
the context, yet without believing anything blindly either. And so
many don't want to study and learn about what the Buddha taught. So
Punnadhammo was right in a lot of ways about what he called 'Buddh-
lite' and the watering-down of Western Dharma. I wish he were here
with us again too. You can't conjure him up again the way you did
Jigme, can you, Ev?
--DharmaTroll
Evelyn
--DharmaTroll
Actually I know how to get in touch with him...... but don't think he will
ever return to usenet.
Keynes
wrote:
>On Sep 17, 1:46 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:56:23 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 16, 8:46 pm, possum <jhk00B0Sn3VdC...@spambox.us> wrote:
>> >> On 16 Sep, 20:11, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
>> >> > > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
>> >> > > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>>
>> >> > Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
>> >> > You haven't changed a bit, I see.
>>
>> >> hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>>
>> >Another familiar old poster! Hi, possum.
>>
>> >> > The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
>> >> > altogether magical, mystical, or spooky
>>
>> Not at all. I was saying "In the seen, just the seen".
>> (Recommended by the Buddha as 'liberation'.)
>>
>
>No, you were not. That has to do with liking, disliking, and
>emotional, conditioned baggage we add to experience. You were denying
>the physical hardware of eyes and brains that deal with perception,
>and possibly denying all of reality.
>
Does knowing (or supposing) how you see
have any effect on actual seeing? Can it be that
buffalo and birds without a scientific theory
must be blind?
The physical hardware is a rationalization-explanation
placed on top of experience. It is extraneous, and as
you admit below, historically totally fallible. What
do such explanations add to experience but limits
and endless unsatisfied desires?
(And this pointless discussion too.)
>I remember this! More nostalgia! You use to play the knights & knaves
>game, as I recall. Knaves, in these logic puzzles, always said the
>opposite of whatever was true. You'd go out of your way to make sure
>just about every single sentence was false in your posts.
>
You must be the good guy, and me the bad.
You must be right, and me wrong.
You must win, and I must lose.
Do you see where this dualism is taking you?
Is this how things really are? No doubt many
would agree with you that dualism is the only
way to make sense of the world. But in my
opinion, yours is actually the unproductive
hence senseless position.
>> >> >(or other mumbo-jumbo like 'non-dual')
>>
>> You don't understand the fallacy of duality?
>> Where have you been all these years?
>
>Oh I understand your superstitions.
You show no sign of that.
On the other hand I know exactly where you're
coming from and where you're going. Please
try to stay relevant and drop the ad hominems.
They just make you look silly and petty.
(And unarmed and dishonest.)
>> Trolley, what are you doing with buddhism? Seriously.
>> You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of it
>> nor interest in it. You rant like a total anti-buddhist.
>
>Yes, just the opposite!
>
>> You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder.
>> (Or is that your head?) You come on like Mr.Wizard
>> in buddhist NGs, and when someone brings up dharma
>> you completely lose control of your bowels.
>
>Nice insults. Too bad you didn't mention dharma
Do you want the original sutra quotes in original translation?
Whatever for? You didn't understand them either.
OK. Check out the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra.
(Links supplied below.)
>or equate your endless metaphysical speculations with it.
You are the speculator here. Not I.
>> I don't mind conversing with you, but you are devious,
>> untruthful, and unnecessarily insulting.
>
>Yes, just the opposite!
>
>> (But I bet your parents think you're cute.)
>
>There you are wrong. My parents were indeed somewhat attractive.
>
????
>> What's your game? What's your aim? What's your hat size?
>> And do they actually make them that big?
>
>You lost it with the gibberish questions. Better to stay in form and
>just say the negations of truths, Keynes.
>
A monk asked Joshu,"Say something real."
Joshu said,"Your mother is ugly."
>> Wash out your mouth if you say 'science know all'.
>> This certainly ain't the place for it.
>
>Yes, just the opposite! Science leads one to realize that one doesn't
>know, and only can conditionally accept rough and dirty models which
>may be replaced tomorrow. Religious conviction, such as twisted misuse
>of terms like 'non-dualism'
What do you know about non-dualism?
Can you say a single word about it?
I noticed you tried to finesse it in this post.
Snipped it right out and made it go away.
Is that scientific realism? Like when you
close your eyes the world vanishes or something?
No doubt you will keep trying to appear
to know what you know nothing about.
But who are you kidding?
>and pretending that cats, trees, rocks,
>and stars -- and even brains -- don't exist,
They don't exist as you think that they do.
"What and what they think, it is otherwise."
Here we get into prestidigitation - now you see it,
now you don't. The existence/non-existence dichotomy
is a logical dualism. Can there be non-existence without
existence? Can there be existence without non-existence?
Apparently opposite, they are an inseparable pair,
therefore perfectly relative and meaningless.
There is no such thing as existence or non-existence.
>leads to rigid closed-loop thinking,
Oh, we can't have that, Mr Wizard.
We need some flexibility to move around within
the bounds and limits of holy scientific orthodoxy.
>which is impervious to any change and which can't be
>disproven.
So far you've delivered another load of proof that you
are totally a child of your times, irrationally rational.
Like they say,"You can send a girl to Vassar, but you
can't make her think."
>Well, you've created your hell, so live in it.
I'm inviting you to join me...
>And keep up the contradictions and insults! I wouldn't want it any
>other way. It's nostalgic. Glad to see that you haven't changed a bit,
>Keynes. And I hope you did remember to say hi to Harry Potter for me.
>
>--DharmaTroll
We both love insults. You certainly need a pie in your
self-satisfied face. Perhaps a whole bakery or two.
I know I can count on you for baseless insults in a
never ending stream of predictable sameness.
Barf much?
And now for something completely different -
Prajna Paramita (great wisdom) tracts
The Heart Sutra (commonly chanted in monestaries)
http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/sutras/conze.htm
Hsin Hsin Ming -- Verses on the Faith Mind by
The 3rd Zen Patriarch, Sengstan
http://www.allspirit.co.uk/hsinhsinming.html
Bankei - Buddha Mind
http://www.allspirit.co.uk/buddhamind.html
Diamond Sutra (Translated by A. F. Price)
Hearing this sutra brought enlightenment to Hui Neng,
the sixth zen patriach and author of the Platform Sutra.
http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamondsutra.htm
How to Meditate?
Online book on Mindfulness Meditation
http://www.realization.org/page/namedoc0/mipe/mipe_0.htm
Keynes
wrote:
>On Sep 17, 9:24 am, "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL
DharmaTroll
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:26:41 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
Does skiing in the Alps have anything to do with brushing your teeth?
Can it be that kangaroos without bicycles have multiple orgasms?
One of these days I'll write a whole post and talk like you.
> The physical hardware is a rationalization-explanation
> placed on top of experience. It is extraneous,
Oh, spare me the deva-dung.
You just repeat that same old boring dogma.
When I describe my experience, and do phenomenology, I do
phenomenology.
When I read about neuroscience and am awed, I think about
neuroscience.
You're like a Fundie that wants to burn every book except the bible.
> On the other hand I know exactly where you're
> coming from and where you're going. Please
> try to stay relevant and drop the ad hominems.
> They just make you look silly and petty.
> (And unarmed and dishonest.)
Non-Dual-Dude, you don't even know what ad hominem means. It has
nothing to do with my poking fun of you. It's a claim that you are
wrong based on some flaw in your personality, or some insult. So if I
say, you're wrong because you have mental problems, or because you're
black or Jewish or Arab -- that is ad hominem argumentum.
And I'm not insulting you, though I get that you feel insulted. I just
point out how silly it is to constantly shove this "Row, row, row your
boat, we're all in the Matrix" dogma over and over, and preach your
myopia anytime I mention neuroscience or the speed of light or
anything else in the real world.
> Do you want the original sutra quotes in original translation?
> Whatever for? You didn't understand them either.
I'm sure you can spin any sutra to suit whatever metaphysical dogma
you preach.
And I've taken enough classes on Buddhist suttas as well as Judeo/
Christian ones to spot fundies and change the subject or just poke fun
when a nutter starts preaching.
> OK. Check out the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra.
> (Links supplied below.)
I'm happy that you attack everything I say, and claim the world isn't
real and your brain and eyes don't perceive. To me it's a compliment.
That's the protocol here when someone says something intelligent,
instead of asking them questions and engaging in discussion and
learning something, you try to reduce them to your level.
Why I just saw that with someone (not you) referring to Tang:
"I don't have much time for stupidity or people bugging me. That
includes Tang's 5000 word contortions and banal crap like you're
talking. I can see
right through it so you're wasting your time. Almost everything Tang
writes is wrong or misses the point."
To me, that's a high compliment, meaning that this guy Tang knows his
shit so well and can run circles around me so I'll just bash
everything he says and say everything he says is wrong and dismiss
him. Well, your doing the same to me is just a way of saying "wow, I
forgot how thoughtful, astute, well-read, and knowledgeable you are,
so here's your welcome back into usenet hell."
So thanks for the warm welcome back.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
You dodged everything.
How clever you must be.
Or something.
Evelyn
news:prr4b553mth75jedt...@4ax.com...
You do alright Keynes. :-)
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipāta 1.8
daletx
Heh. Would it surprise you to find out that I have 2500 rounds, but no
gun? Caught .22 LRHPs on sale several years ago, and I'm gonna get a
gun, I really am.
DT
DharmaTroll
> "Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:prr4b553mth75jedt...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:51:32 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll
Keynes is fine. If I thought he was a jerk or idiot I would simply
ignore his posts.
And he only makes outrageous metaphysical claims, which, like Star
Trek, are fun to argue about. He never makes real claims that are
problematic, like bigotry, etc. I have no problem with folks like
that. But I will play the straight man and say "that's madness!"
--DharmaTroll
Evelyn
--DharmaTroll
*********************
DT, never fail to consider that you are making judgement calls based on your
own personal experiential data. You have no idea what another person's
experience may be. If someone else perceives something you do not, do you
then have the right to tell them they are wrong? I say no. I say you may
suggest to them that it could be imagined, mentally generated ideas or
images, but you don't really know, so it is better to say nothing in that
case. Perhaps to challenge, but then it is probably wisest to go silent on
it.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> news:prr4b553mth75jedt...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:51:32 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll
Honestly I lost track of what they were arguing about the minute the
micron tape measures and microscopes came out....
/leebert
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> At weekly Buddhist gatherings and
> retreats, so many people who do Buddhism want to ignore the sutras and
> say "oh the Buddha didn't believe in any of that karma or
> reincarnation stuff, and besides, if there is no self, you can't be
> reborn, and the Buddha couldn't have been that stupid to claim both --
> he just meant 'bad habits' by karma, just as I do." Yes, folks say
> such idiotic things.
OK. So where's the line between newage and sewage?
/leebert
zenworm
"LRHP" is an oxymoronic acronym
relaxing and being present
ZN :D
DharmaTroll
Oh I don't mean people who are new -- I mean people that have been
around for years.
--DharmaTroll
possum
> On Sep 16, 8:46 pm, possum <jhk00B0Sn3VdC...@spambox.us> wrote:> On 16 Sep, 20:11, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
> > > > But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
> > > > without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
> > > > 'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.
>
> > > Vintage Keynes! Wonderful!
> > > You haven't changed a bit, I see.
>
> > hi DT. good to see you. still an eejit. : )
>
> Another familiar old poster! Hi, possum.
>
> > > The claim here (in true Keynesian form) is that experience is
> > > altogether magical, mystical, or spooky (or other mumbo-jumbo like
> > > 'non-dual') and thus we can't examine it further and understand it any
> > > better, but just accept it as magic, and perhaps it is even proof that
> > > the world doesn't really exist and is all illusion, if you spin it
> > > right.
>
> > examining the counter claim, we see a spinning around familiar labels
> > 'magical' 'mystical', 'spooky' (an old favourite!), mumbo-jumbo, which
> > are handy little short-hand tools, and useful in appropriate contexts,
> > but which have the potential, if not critically examined, to mislead
>
> No, not here. I could have added the big one, "God". The point is that
> none of them have a referent. Just "magic" will do.
DT you have missed my point. obviously, i didn't make it very well,
but we are talking entirely at cross purposes here, and the last thing
i want is you and keynes falling out, so i'll try again. btw -
everyone's glad to see you back, no doubt about it. : )
let's look at keynes' claim again.
>>>But in the end, experience is experience, unaccountable
without needing any dangling explanations. Knowing
'about' is at least a step distant from any actual knowing.>>>
The claim in the last sentence appears to me to be self- evidently
valid. you can 'know' that you see a black cat sleeping on your sofa,
and knowledge of optics adds nothing to the experience of seeing the
black cat sleeping on the sofa...the raw sensation as tang used to
call it...
turning to the first sentence, which i left to last because i think it
might be where the problem starts, keynes says "in the end, experience
is experience", which i have taken as the main thrust of his message.
he then goes on to say " unaccountable, without needing any dangling
explanation. " (i'm going to leave 'unaccountable to last last, for
reasons i hope will become clearer). turning to the last clause in
the sentence, the meaning that i picked up on, was 'without _needing_
[explanation].
i agreed with keynes on this, but of course, the meaning i attach to
it goes through my own personal interpretation process. it isn't
necessarily the meaning keynes intended, but as of now, i have no
reason to think our meanings diverge significantly. i believe he is
saying that knowledge of how we experience is not necessary for
experience itself. hence my guff about the car and driving. he is
not, as i read him, saying that knowledge or explanation should be
dispensed with, or is wholly undesirable or anything like that... only
that it isn't necessary or required. read in the context of the very
first clause, in which he says ''in the end", i think my reading is
correct. it's an interesting point on its own of course - digressing
briefly, ignorance is a poison, in buddhism, causing suffering, but i
don't see this as undermining the validitity of what keynes is saying,
because the thrust of his message is addressing the way to end
suffering, not the causes of suffering. it's rather getting at the
droppings of baskets and cages, that clunk and bag.
i have no comment whatsoever to make on 'dangling', which for me was
superfluous, but perhaps chimed more significantly for others...
so, returning now to the word which i think was the most problematic
in keynes remarks - which perhaps i should add, i didn't take as a
claim - (i don't know whether or not i should have) -the word
'unaccountable'. the emphasis for my reading of keynes was not on
that word, but i suspected when i read your post, that it produced a
strong reaction in you, and i felt that you over-reacted, and
consequently misinterpreted his meaning. of course, i don't know
whether i was wrong or right, but i believed it possible, and part of
my subsequent post was intended to prompt examination of the
possibility.
returning to the point in hand, it occurs to me that keynes may have
meant several things in choosing that word, it may be valid in some
senses, in appropriate in others, and it would be fairer to let him
clarify his meaning or even reconsider his choice of word, which after
all, was spoken in a relaxed forum, not a formal setting. i strongly
doubt that he meant it in the way you have extrapolated. i have
deconstructed, analytically, as a sort of mindfulness exercise for me,
but it's rather after the fact - hope it's not too boring...: ) i
can't keep it up for much longer...
it also occurs to me that the algorithm for the whole of experience,
if possible, would be bigger than the whole world, presenting an
immediate storage problem. i think i read that somewhere, probably
the brilliant john barrow said something like it.
smip>
>
> > keynes' zen is keynes' zen.
>
> No, it's not Zen. It's closer to Creationism or Astrology, but it has
> nothing to do with Zen. Except in the Californian sense, where 'zen'
> means 'fukkit', etc.
hehheh! : )
>
> > it drives you nuts that he says throw
> > the texts on the fire, don't it?
>
> Cool. The first mind-reading personal attack since my return to usenet
> hell.
Lol! ok, i've tried to make my thought processes explicit - anything
to stop you and keynes warring...
smeep>
> The story you refer to is a teacher passing down his teachings to his
> dharma heir, who throws them in the fire. The teacher asks "What are
> you doing?" and the student replies "What are you saying?" The idea is
> that the teacher is relying on book teachings, whereas the student
> knows he must use his own intelligence and spontaneity to continue the
> teaching and not just repeat dogma, whereas the teacher has become
> attached. An alternative interpretation is that the notebooks were
> empty, and the teacher was giving a final test to his student. But the
> story has nothing to do with an appeal to magic. Another non sequitur.
oh yes, that's the story i was thinking of, thanks. i haven't read it
for a long time, and my memory made half of it up (did a Palin!) i
was thinking it was something about attachment to name and form/words.
i refreshed my memory earlier and you're right - the teacher gave it
as a status symbol to his successor. Shoju. not to be confused with
the man with the dog. which i just did. (that was a non-sequitur,
xcept in my mind, which just switched to stream of consciousness,
heh!)
> > you think you prefer your virtue to keynes 'bad' labelling,
>
> Nothing 'bad' about Keynes at all. In my book he's at worst 'silly',
> not 'bad' in any way.
i didn't express myself very clearly, but to clarify, i didn't mean to
imply that either you or i thought anything 'bad' of keynes - i
substituted 'bad labelling' for "metaphysical snake oil" which was in
the original post, and related to the earlier point i made about short
hand tools, but i did it clumsily and fecked up the punctuation, which
i am bad at. lol! i hope that's cleared that up. : )
> > but how do you know the thought wasn't planted
> > and you're an ad-man's dream pet?
>
> Or even worse, a figment of Jigme's imagination!
it was a serious question. that's an avoidance joke, you naughty
DT.
but there's no rule that you have to behave, not on these boards. : )
>
> I don't know for sure, any more than I don't know that the born-agains
> aren't right and that they will be teleported to heaven by Jesus when
> the rapture comes, while I burn with the rest of you heathens.
>
> But those scenarios are too unlikely to mean anything practical to me
> at all. Much more likely is the scenario that I am 100% physical: that
> I am star-stuff forged in the center of real, physical, material stars
> four and a half billion years ago. And you know what, that reality
> makes me feel more connected to everyone and everything than any made-
> up talk of magic or gods or transcendence ever could.
yes, you've mentioned it before.
do you want to reconsider that 100% figure, no offence but i think
you're mental.
in the nicest possible way of course. i hope you stick around a while
and play some more, you're a lot of fun. : )
possum
DharmaTroll
Well you can stop right there. Keynes, and a plethora of other
nutters, start with something valid, maybe even an important quote
from a sutra, or even Shakespeare. Then you see where they go with it,
and after interpretation and spin, the universe doesn't exist, or in
Keynes case, brains aren't really conscious. It's transcendental
magic, you see.
Meditation is great as a form of exercise, like working out or playing
scales on the piano. The people who do Buddhism the most injustice are
the 'Lobotomy Buddhists'. The claim is that thinking, or even
rationality, is bad. So what do they do? They repeat fortune-cookie
comments about being an idiot and not thinking. And that's as far away
from Buddhism as it gets. The point I stress is that is that the
Buddha's practice was to get rid of obsessive thoughts. Then with all
the space cleared, you can have intelligent and creative thoughts.
Keynes is a wonderful example of trying to blot out intelligence and
creativity and praise being lobotomized. He responds, not to a comment
I made on a Buddhist sutta or issue, but on a cutting edge neuro-
biology article, and he denies brains and tries to say that you can't
discuss perception or cognitive processes, that it's mystical and
unknowable. Convenient for Keynes, as he gets to level the playing
field. The difference between us is that I constantly say "I don't
know". My silence isn't one of lobotomy, but of clearing space so that
I can feel awe and wonder about everything, from sitting and watching
my breath to playing poker, to reading up on astrophysics, to watching
TV, to responding to your poo-flinging.
> do you want to reconsider that 100% figure, no offence but i think
> you're mental.
Heh. I'll let my pal Einstein reply to that one, ...
--DharmaTroll
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly
submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence." --Einstein
possum
i am in awe and wonder at the sight of bullshit gushing from a horses
asshole!
halve a nice day! : )
possum
possum
i am in awe and wonder at the sight of bullshit gushing from a horse's
cacosopher
Right. We all know htem. I meant newage as in "New Age," as in groovy
hempwear, crystals, Tantric love shacks, etc.
cacosopher
> On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> > The physical hardware is a rationalization-explanation
> > placed on top of experience. It is extraneous,
>
> Oh, spare me the deva-dung.
Nice. I like that. Deva-dung. Quite creative.
Why cast aspersions here? I understand what Keynes means here, he's
saying that what we like to think is direct experience still isn't,
it's always dereferenced by some intermediary medium.
Are you being deliberately debative for competition's sake?
Obstreperous? You're guilty of something, I can tell! I know....
simply: You're being a pain in the ass!
> You're like a Fundie that wants to burn every book except the bible.
And your invectives typify why? The fundamentalism of the naive
materialist? The know-it-all that can't just let some things slide?
If my guilty pleasure is to blow smoke rings of baloney on Usenet why
piss in the air at them?
(not that Keynes did any such thing)
> And I'm not insulting you, though I get that you feel insulted. I just
> point out how silly it is to constantly shove this "Row, row, row your
> boat, we're all in the Matrix" dogma over and over,
> I'm happy that you attack everything I say, and claim the world isn't
> real and your brain and eyes don't perceive.
A citation please.... otherwise you are committing a debating error of
some kind (straw man...).
You're extrapolating all manner of attributes from some relatively
innocuous statements.
> Well, your doing the same to me is just a way of saying "wow, I
> forgot how thoughtful, astute, well-read, and knowledgeable you are,
> so here's your welcome back into usenet hell."
You make your own karma better than anyone else here. And lo and
behold, you've done it in such short order as well.
Well. I'm impressed!
> So thanks for the warm welcome back.
Everybody give da trollster a >>>>big hug<<<<
/leebert
Charles E Hardwidge
> Meditation is great as a form of exercise, like working out or playing
> scales on the piano. The people who do Buddhism the most injustice are
> the 'Lobotomy Buddhists'. The claim is that thinking, or even
> rationality, is bad. So what do they do? They repeat fortune-cookie
> comments about being an idiot and not thinking. And that's as far away
> from Buddhism as it gets. The point I stress is that is that the
> Buddha's practice was to get rid of obsessive thoughts. Then with all
> the space cleared, you can have intelligent and creative thoughts.
Bullshitters who want something pull tricks with complex arguments and
relationships, or tell you to switch off and deride others who are not in
the same clique. I've seen most of it before and seen people attaching
themselves to different labels try the same trick. Religion? Business?
Online discussion forums? They're all the same. Drunks in a bar.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:dd413c95-b655-4c6d...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Are you being deliberately debative for competition's sake?
> Obstreperous? You're guilty of something, I can tell! I know....
> simply: You're being a pain in the ass!
Seen it all before. Trust me. You're not that hot or special. The way some
of you act in these groups is mediocre, like drooling savages running riot
in a museum. Comic Book guys. Abusers.
A pagan sacrifice to a myth eclipses you and you wonder why God or the
divine is invisible. You want glory and riches the cheap way, yet, the
brutal slaying of a village and a spit in the desert has more value.
That's the sad truth of it all so STFU or piss off.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
cacosopher
wrote:
> "cacosopher" <epistinym-f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dd413c95-b655-4c6d...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Are you being deliberately debative for competition's sake?
> > Obstreperous? You're guilty of something, I can tell! I know....
> > simply: You're being a pain in the ass!
>
> Seen it all before. Trust me. You're not that hot or special. The way some
> of you act in these groups is mediocre, like drooling savages running riot
> in a museum. Comic Book guys. Abusers.
We're not worthy.
> A pagan sacrifice to a myth eclipses you and you wonder why God or the
> divine is invisible. You want glory and riches the cheap way, yet, the
> brutal slaying of a village and a spit in the desert has more value.
> That's the sad truth of it all so STFU or piss off.
You're so deep!!!
Hollywood Lee
The Charles usenet posting template:
1. Using a world weary tone, leavened with a large dose of superiority,
note that you have seen it all, done it all, and it ain't for pussies
like the person being responded to.
2. Note that you've killed people just for looking stupid, followed up
by characterizing anyone who objects that they are slack-jawed, mouth
breathers.
3. Finsish up with a STFU.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Strangely, I just made that comment to someone in real life when I
told them that I'd taken an away team with me and descended back into
usenet hell. I described this newsgroup as basically a bunch of drunks
in a bar. Now I live in a neighborhood of nutters -- at a neighborhood
party a couple of weeks ago, one chick claims she saw a fairy, a
couple folks were babbling astrology, one claimed to have seen flying
saucers, and one into Native American stuff claimed that Native
Americans lived to be 200 years old and had perfect teeth until the
evil Western white men came. And they all worship acupuncture and eat
only things that say 'organic' on them. But they're all love and
flowers people who constantly are hugging me. None of the name-calling
stuff like here. So I simply started talking about my favorite
television shows and smoked some pot. But this is more like a dark bar
filled with drunks, instead of the superstitious hippie neighbors.
Definitely drunks in a bar.
--DharmaTroll
"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must,
above all, be a sheep." --Einstein
DharmaTroll
> On Sep 17, 12:51 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> > > The physical hardware is a rationalization-explanation
> > > placed on top of experience. It is extraneous,
>
> > Oh, spare me the deva-dung.
>
> Nice. I like that. Deva-dung. Quite creative.
>
> Why cast aspersions here? I understand what Keynes means here, he's
> saying that what we like to think is direct experience still isn't,
> it's always dereferenced by some intermediary medium.
Actually, that was a point I made, that not only is our experience
mediated, but it's not even temporally correct either, and is always
1/10th of a second behind. Now even though you've been around,
Leebert, this is an ongoing conversation. Keynes insisted that the
speed of light wasn't c, and piled nonsense higher and deeper when I
presented what Einstein and others have discovered, and here he's
claiming that eyes and brains don't have anything to do with
perception -- that is, it's an attack on all reason and science yet
again. The claim was that because experiencing feels simple, then it
can't be caused by something as complex as a brain, so it must be some
ineffable magic. Not that I have anything against Brahmanists like
Keynes, except when they are in denial of reality. And so I kicked him
in the butt.
> Are you being deliberately debative for competition's sake?
> Obstreperous? You're guilty of something, I can tell! I know....
> simply: You're being a pain in the ass!
Damn right. And I'll continue to kick anyone's butt who claims that
brains (or stars) aren't real, or that acupuncture cures cancer, or
that Jesus has returned in a flying saucer.
I am the great and powerful DharmaTroll!
(Ignore the little boy behind the curtain.)
> > And I'm not insulting you, though I get that you feel insulted. I just
> > point out how silly it is to constantly shove this "Row, row, row your
> > boat, we're all in the Matrix" dogma over and over,
> > I'm happy that you attack everything I say, and claim the world isn't
> > real and your brain and eyes don't perceive.
>
> A citation please.... otherwise you are committing a debating error of
> some kind (straw man...).
Not at all. You are welcome to Google up Keynes' anti-realist babble.
> Well. I'm impressed!
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
> > So thanks for the warm welcome back.
>
> Everybody give da trollster a >>>>big hug<<<<
>
> /leebert
Better, or I'll show y'all the sound of one hand clapping...
upside yo head.
--DharmaTroll
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more
certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not
lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,
but through striving after rational knowledge." --Einstein
Charles E Hardwidge
news:h8v451$c1p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Charles usenet posting template:
>
> 1. Using a world weary tone, leavened with a large dose of superiority,
> note that you have seen it all, done it all, and it ain't for pussies like
> the person being responded to.
>
> 2. Note that you've killed people just for looking stupid, followed up by
> characterizing anyone who objects that they are slack-jawed, mouth
> breathers.
>
> 3. Finsish up with a STFU.
Misrepresenting what someone's saying and trying to rip the rug from under
their reputation is an old trick. Like, I haven't seen that before.
Do you want to explain that, or just be a happy jerk?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
> On 9/17/2009 8:03 PM, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
>
Sort of fits well with his model of usenet as drunks in a bar.
Now I find it fun to walk into bars wearing a cape, mask, and
spandex...
Nice to see you're still here as well, Hollywood.
--DharmaTroll
halfawake
> On Sep 16, 12:09 am, "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"JigmeDorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:8ff9e985-cbb0-4d92...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>On Sep 15, 7:21 pm, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>>
>><leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 15, 7:11 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So what do think,Jigme? And nice to see you plunge with me back into
>>>>-- what did Hardweggie say again -- "the same old tired crowd talking
>>>>the bullshit and playing head games."
>>
>>>>--DharmaTroll (TheOriginal)
>>
>>>No, you've changed some.... same package, fresher rhetoric ...
>>
>>>/leebert
>>
>>Quite a reunion here. It's been what 15 years? Leebert, Tang,
>>DharmaTroll, Ev -all still in good form I see. Somehow I doubt that
>>anybody's playing the same old head games - after 15 years of practice
>>surely we're all past that now,
>>
>>****************
>>
>>For the sake of you guys, I am willing to play a little.......:-)
>>It is fun to all be on usenet again!
>>
>
>
> (Ev waxes nostalgic ... :-)
>
> I think my first fun w/ DharmaTroll was nailing him for Star Trek
> mythos fandom when at the same time he was roasting Punnadhammo (?)
> for superstitious beliefs. His reaction was delightful.
>
> /leebert
you trying to say something bad about star trek? my phaser's set on
"stun" but don't push it!
Robert
halfawake
it's a shame when you have to use that kind of equipment to measure up.
sorry, couldn't help it...
robert
Allen Barker
Actually, bullshit gushing from a horse's asshole
*would* be an unusual sight (if one could visually
discern the difference)...
> halve a nice day! : )
Nice morning, nice afternoon? ;-)
Lee Rudolph
>But this is more like a dark bar
>filled with drunks, instead of the superstitious hippie neighbors.
>Definitely drunks in a bar.
"Midway in our life's journey, I went astray from the straight road
and woke to find myself with drunks in a dark bar."?
We're getting there. A little more work.
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
Did somebody say Star Trek??? Whew Who!!
Hi Robert!
--DharmaTroll
Evelyn
news:h8v451$c1p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That is a very acccurate model of his interactions with people. But you
forgot to mention that after a few of these lovely pronouncements, he will
disappear for a while, only to return a few months later, starting out
semi-civil, but gradually deteriorating to the same pattern again. Lather,
rinse, repeat.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
--DharmaTroll
****************************
DT, it sounds as though you are describing Woodstock!
cacosopher
You're not sorry.
Go ahead. Do it again.
/leebert
cacosopher
> "Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h8v451$c1p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > On 9/17/2009 8:03 PM, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
Cupkakke was more consistent than that.
/leebert
cacosopher
> On Sep 17, 9:37 pm, cacosopher <epistinym-f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:51 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 12:17 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> > > > The physical hardware is a rationalization-explanation
> > > > placed on top of experience. It is extraneous,
>
> > > Oh, spare me the deva-dung.
>
> > Nice. I like that. Deva-dung. Quite creative.
>
> > Why cast aspersions here? I understand what Keynes means here, he's
> > saying that what we like to think is direct experience still isn't,
> > it's always dereferenced by some intermediary medium.
>
> Actually, that was a point I made, that not only is our experience
> mediated, but it's not even temporally correct either, and is always
> 1/10th of a second behind. Now even though you've been around,
> Leebert, this is an ongoing conversation. Keynes insisted that the
> speed of light wasn't c, and piled nonsense higher and deeper when I
> presented what Einstein and others have discovered, and here he's
> claiming that eyes and brains don't have anything to do with
> perception -- that is, it's an attack on all reason and science yet
> again.
Yeh, fine, whatever .... I can't find all the moonshine you people
type out on these fora ... gimme a break!
> The claim was that because experiencing feels simple, then it
> can't be caused by something as complex as a brain, so it must be some
> ineffable magic. Not that I have anything against Brahmanists like
> Keynes, except when they are in denial of reality. And so I kicked him
> in the butt.
I know Keynes well enough to doubt he literally meant what you took as
his intended meaning.
>
> > Are you being deliberately debative for competition's sake?
> > Obstreperous? You're guilty of something, I can tell! I know....
> > simply: You're being a pain in the ass!
>
> Damn right. And I'll continue to kick anyone's butt who claims that
> brains (or stars) aren't real, or that acupuncture cures cancer, or
> that Jesus has returned in a flying saucer.
Um, you didn't get the memo? Y'know? About the X Files, y'know, as in
"Xmas?" Yup. It was always about the 2nd coming in his UFO, except
he's always been here like a Jesus Vorlon.
> I am the great and powerful DharmaTroll!
> (Ignore the little boy behind the curtain.)
:-)
> Better, or I'll show y'all the sound of one hand clapping...
> upside yo head.
Oh god now yer waxing jive.
Horrible, bad man.
> "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more
> certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not
> lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,
> but through striving after rational knowledge." --Einstein
Jocko Homo!
/leebert
cacosopher
> "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must,
> above all, be a sheep." --Einstein
The flock is competitive, especially in the front pews. Black sheep to
the back pews, where they can be seen & not herd...
/l
cacosopher
Yer utterly lacking in any semblance of shame whatsoever....
norbu_tragri
Cups was, right or wrong, Cups, just on the spot. Taking a chance,
with heart, to help
everyone...loving, pissed, trying to just qoute...Cups was an awful
great guy...
like a father or son or daughter whatever, we don't fit him into a
tiny diagram of some theoretical "cupcake". Cups was some crazy sane
firebrand i got to know enough who thought i could make everything
right on usenet and then uncertain...i don't think i need to give him
a bright new red bicycle, cus Cups....
He was a buddhadhamma practioneer.
- n.
norbu_tragri
> On Sep 15, 2:41 pm, "Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Jigme Dorje" <jigme.dorje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:82765f61-4eff-4b08...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > What soul?
>
> > Hi Jigme!
>
> > I am so glad to see you posting here!
> > --
>
> > Evelyn
>
> Same here.Not here to become entrenched, however.
trenches come and go, nothing to worry about...
Evelyn
news:a91ad1f9-1e50-432f...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
- n.
I do miss him..... and Hal.
Evelyn
********************
That is true. But that is DT for ya!
cacosopher
> Actually, that was a point I made, that not only is our experience
> mediated, but it's not even temporally correct either, and is always
> 1/10th of a second behind. Now even though you've been around,
> Leebert, this is an ongoing conversation. Keynes insisted that the
> speed of light wasn't c, and piled nonsense higher and deeper when I
> presented what Einstein and others have discovered, and here he's
> claiming that eyes and brains don't have anything to do with
> perception -- that is, it's an attack on all reason and science yet
> again. The claim was that because experiencing feels simple, then it
> can't be caused by something as complex as a brain, so it must be some
> ineffable magic. Not that I have anything against Brahmanists like
> Keynes, except when they are in denial of reality. And so I kicked him
> in the butt.
Ohhhh Trollpa !
I have no idea what Keynesian notions you were bashing with such
dubious glee, but here's one for you:
Mind.
As in the type with the capital "M". The B'ist kind, as in experience
of information, where the two are inseparable, fungible yet different
sides of the same coin. There's the notion of primordial mind founded
in quantum physics, whereby Mind observes & henceforth waves collapse.
Without the essence of the quintessential cusp of the present moment,
Mind would be null. This is looking to be a three-sided coin so far.
We have our physical bodies as a medium for awareness & experience,
whereby essence and the information/experience coin seem manifest
through the various media of our neural/sensory subsystems.
The Buddhist point is to not reify the medium. Don't make the medium
of biological self the limit of one's view of the world. The medium of
personal experience is just as contiguous with the world as a
plasmodial slime in a lake. As part of growing up personal identity
formation seeks to reify a position of the person, building the ego,
the self and a sense however of an impermanent & hence ineffable thing
inside, metaphorically known as the soul.
This is a rite of passage in learning to survive in the world. And
when we are secure and calm, we may employ the example of the
Tathagata to unlearn all that, to just see it as a tool.
In Buddhism and other spiritual venues the shortcut to this is a
simple intuitive leap: Openness. Groovy, Gaia-loving openness.
Eminence imbued in everything, all that. God & Brahma are metaphorical
abstractions of it with Anthropic Reity chucked in for good measure.
But openness is very close to emptiness (in the Buddhist sense),
adjacent in view b/c forms - barriers and views - are dropped.
Now, you're on B'ist Usenet. Riddle me this: If somebody ventures
forth with some harmless metaphor while agreeing otherwise to not
reify the medium, then what's the bother?
We had almost this very same argument 10 years ago except my jargon
and examples have changed: You're still grumping about excessive
reliance on metaphorical spooks and I'm still pointing out that they
are just placeholders for people who may be well aware that beliefs
(theirs, ours) are also a psychological state of mind. IOW the
internally position their beliefs as more akin to principles.
In the case of Punnadhammo, he was reifying forms, but for a good
cause. In the case of Keynes, I don't think he's erecting forms as you
claim. Or if you have read any Terry Pratchett books, if people can
believe in Hog Father (Father Xmas) it's easier to believe in Justice
and Compassion.
/l ( ... careful where you point that thing, boy, you might put
somebody's eye out.... )