> halfawake wrote:
>
>> Noel Friesen wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 22, 9:48 am, "Noel Friesen" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "RaaN"
hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:f0acea12-8536-4c4b-8f59-865c529023df@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 8:00 pm, "Noel Friesen" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RaaN"
hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:2ab3769a-a6df-4cb0-8698-c1d3f2bf26c5@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 12:24 am, DharmaTroll
my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 11:57 am, RaaN
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 9:53 am, DharmaTroll
my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 11:26 pm, RaaN
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 7:52 pm, DharmaTroll
my-deja.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 6:32 pm, RaaN
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 6:01 pm,RobertEpstein
verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 9:45 am, Tang Huyen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gmail.com[remove]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noel Friesen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting statement. I've read of case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> studies about people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have sustained brain damage to the centers responsible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determing their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodies orientation in space. In addition to being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to successfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traverse a room, get spoons from their bowl to their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouths etc., these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people all describe the kind of unitary experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show up all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in mystic literature. Are those unitary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlightenment? If so, there does to be some evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlightenment is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to brain state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This phenomenon of brain damage resulting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various kinds of unitary experiences or whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that show up all the time in mystic literature is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I previously call the God of the gaps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something in the brain/mind breaks, and such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accidents open up a crack that allows some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glimpse of what is outside of normal experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such cracks can open up perspectives that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally inaccessible to normal structures (sorry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the tautologies, but that seems to be how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works). They allow some glimpse of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual, something extraordinary, which can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem like what is outside of norms and standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/fashion/25brain.html?pagewanted=all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The New York Times had an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article "A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Superhighway to Bliss" by Leslie Kaufman, 25 May,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008, about Jill Bolte Taylor, who had a stroke and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then experienced what she claimed to be Nirvana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However such experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are taken as such,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> namely as extraordinary experiences in content,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and their owners do not feel invited to open up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their perception in structure. It is this opening
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up of perception and of mind that is aimed at in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhism, and not any specific experience in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with that. Most of the descriptions of mystical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially the Hindu guru kind, I've felt with pot, DMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acid. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that when the brain fires neurons in differing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different experiences. R.D. Laing's most naive, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ironically, most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular essays, The Politics of Experience and The Bird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested that madness was a quasi-mystical state in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychotic person had been thrown into a process of 'ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcendence'. Psychosis was, therefore, a process of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catharsis and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the person should be guided on their journey, rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moderate their chaotic mental state. But I think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if I didn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such amazing experiences of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and beauty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the "eternal now" when smoking pot, I would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delved so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeply into Buddhism and meditation practice. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience that things aren't as they appear, not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular trippy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling of Oneness and other such nonsense that moved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I now see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhist practice as, like Tang said, not aiming for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content but rather a transforming of how we perceive and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relate to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also got much more interested in Eastern disciplines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> college
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences with psylocibin. It seemed to me [and still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does] that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among the psychedelics most gave a kind of breakdown of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceptual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. I seemed to experience the formation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of perceptual choices in the process of being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if a news
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor were given a variety of components on different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens and could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make quick decisions in real-time about how to assemble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular view. This breakdown of perceptual experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fascinating - not a joyride but a much more academic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience - and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fit very nicely with my studies in phenomenology at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly Maurice Merleau-Ponty's vivid descriptions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceptual acts were constituted by a subjective actor. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the phenomenological texts with more ardor, and with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen the source of those writings first hand. Of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sartre was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regularly taking mescaline, but I don't recall reports of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally conservative Merleau-Ponty taking drugs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having seen that the form of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception could not be taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for granted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that it was quite variant to the viewpoint and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject, I was intrigued as to how far that assembling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process went
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. I was already interested in T'ai Chi and Taoism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this gave me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a deeper angle on both that and the interests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more interesting thing is when what you may consider a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actor becomes the very act of perception itself, indistinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed object perceived, be it sensation, emotion or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that any notion of a subject or object is recognized as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illusory thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving no primacy to mind or matter, awareness or existence,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also being illusory, so what remains is purely phenomena,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ephemeral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fleeting, only apprehended as real in contrast to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illusory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antipodes of self and substance, thus it is not real but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unreal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RaaN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that sounds fascinating. Could you say a little more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --DharmaTroll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A materialist description would say simply that one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> identical
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the brain and its processes so that when one perceives one
>>>>>>>>>>>> is in
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>>>>> the perceiving itself rather than there being a perceiver
>>>>>>>>>>>> perceiving
>>>>>>>>>>>> perceptions, and that there is a continuity of perception into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> physical world so that perception of a given object
>>>>>>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> object as part of that continuity, so then to speak of an
>>>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>>>>> apart
>>>>>>>>>>>> from perception is a kind of optical illusion of the mind (to
>>>>>>>>>>>> borrow
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's phrase) and though a given moment of perception
>>>>>>>>>>>> tends
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accentuate some particular aspect of being it still
>>>>>>>>>>>> consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> entirety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I go with that, and that's exactly what I mean that
>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> observer, especially some kind of spook, separate from the
>>>>>>>>>>> observed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have a sort of pan-psychism as one description
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, in a way, but it's very localized because of the
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> sense organs and brain, but you could say that the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> universe
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> conscious in that particular place in space-time, as long as
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> start throwing in capital letters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> however there is no direct means to differentiate material
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>>>>> except as logical constructs. 'nuff said?
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> RaaN
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aha, you're a neutral monist, then, and you'd probably love
>>>>>>>>>>> Spinoza!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not really. I offered a materialist description but it is only
>>>>>>>>>> that -
>>>>>>>>>> a description. There cannot be said to be anything in an
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate
>>>>>>>>>> sense except in contrast to nothing at all.. namely: it is
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> if it is not nothing. However there being not even nothing, one
>>>>>>>>>> cannot then properly attribute something-ness to what apparently
>>>>>>>>>> remains. Phenomena are existentially neutral.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> RaaN
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't make sense to me. Sure something is only in
>>>>>>>>> contrast to
>>>>>>>>> nothing, but there is something, isn't there, just by the fact
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> we're talking about it. That was Descartes' genius, even
>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>> went on then to posit a God and a soul/ego, which I think were
>>>>>>>>> mistakes. Look, if you ask where I am, I can tell you
>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC,
>>>>>>>>> and where's that, it's in the USA, and where's that, it's in
>>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>>> America, and where's that, it's on Earth, and where's that,
>>>>>>>>> it's Sol
>>>>>>>>> III in the Sol System, and where's that, it's in the Milky Way
>>>>>>>>> Galaxy
>>>>>>>>> and where's that, it's in a cluster of galaxies, and where's
>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> it's in the universe, and where's that? It's nowhere. So in an
>>>>>>>>> absolute sense, we're nowhere. But I'm still really in
>>>>>>>>> Washington,
>>>>>>>>> DC. And something, namely cats, trees, stones, stars, and so
>>>>>>>>> forth,
>>>>>>>>> really exist, even though I might agree with you on the top
>>>>>>>>> level,
>>>>>>>>> because the terms are relational.
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if what you're saying is just a function
>>>>>>>>> of the language.
>>>>>>>>> And yes, ancient cultures in India and Greece and so forth
>>>>>>>>> tend to
>>>>>>>>> talk about something beyond both existence and non-existence.
>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>> that would be metaphor, wouldn't it? Metaphor is that which
>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>> is true or false, neither exists nor does not exist, right?
>>>>>>>>> --DharmaTroll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no something in the absolute sense, which can only be
>>>>>>>> posited
>>>>>>>> as opposed to nothing, however since there is no nothing in fact,
>>>>>>>> there can not be any absolute something. It is to the absolute
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> my objection is aimed. What remains to which existence and
>>>>>>>> nonexistence are beyond is the relative practical phenomenal
>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> RaaN
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there's an error in your logic that might be clarified
>>>>>>> with an
>>>>>>> analogy. Suppose that all your life you had been locked in a
>>>>>>> room where
>>>>>>> everything you can see is blue. The only colour you have ever
>>>>>>> seen is
>>>>>>> blue
>>>>>>> and you apply the logic that for blue to exist not-blue had to
>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>> Since not-blue doesn't exist therefore blue doesn't either.
>>>>>>> However, I
>>>>>>> would argue that the existence of blue does not depend on
>>>>>>> not-blue. It
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> depend on the possibility of not-blue existing in order to make
>>>>>>> blueness
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> meaningful characteristic for an object to have.
>>>>>>> When it comes to existence the possibility of
>>>>>>> non-existence is sufficient
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> say that existence is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The impossibility of non-existence is then sufficient to say
>>>>>> existence
>>>>>> is not.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> RaaN
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. The possibility/impossiblity of non-existence is still an
>>>>> open
>>>>> question then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonexistence is not a directly demonstrable actuality and as such
>>>> existence cannot then be absolutely posited.
>>>> --
>>>> RaaN
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the low-probability of non-existence is a directly demonstrable
>>> actuality and as such the high-probability of existence can be posited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> how is there any possibility of non-existence? if we understand it
>> as a phantom, rather than a presence, then we can consign it to the
>> conceptual realm where it belongs. while we jump at potential ghosts
>> and are surprised by absences, they are always in reference to
>> expectations which are purely mental. even if we think we see
>> something which turns out not to be there, the absence thus posited
>> is done by producing a mental image of that which was expected. in
>> every case, absence is given as a conceptual presence. while this is
>> interesting, it is not mystical in and of itself, and does not create
>> any great metaphysical paradoxes. it is just a mechanism of
>> understanding which the mental function imposes on itself and which
>> is built in to identify patterns of appearance and expectation.
>
>
> The number zero was controversial at its introduction. As
> were negative numbers. As were complex numbers. They are all
> just discriminations, which in these cases have turned out to
> be useful. The not-useful ones (and there were many) fell off
> by the wayside (along with a few would-have-been-useful ones).
Of course I agree that such discriminations are useful.
>
>> when raan involves the nonexistence of nonexistence with the illusory
>> uncertainty of existence itself, he is making a present category
>> dependent on a conceptual one.
>
>
> I might say that he was mixing up his metalanguage with his object
> language. Or that he was just spewing BS. Or that he mistook the
> finger for the moon. Or that he was just fucking with us. Who
> knows. ;-)
I think he is sincere, but as you suggest, has confused two different
areas of description.
>
>> they shouldn't be mixed, even if we do mix them up and confuse them
>> as humans. ontologically they are of totally different species and
>> don't have actual implications for what existence consists of.
>
>
> When the word ontology occurs in a Zen context, red flags
> should be firing-off left and right.
why? I merely use it as a nomenclatural tool. I come in peace.
>
>> the absence of absence can give clarity to presence by removing the
>> conceptual element, but raan makes a mistake in concluding that this
>> means that presence itself is in question. just the opposite, the
>> suchness of presence is given more clarity by x-ing out the lack of
>> any ghosts of disappearance in the background or periphery.
>
>
> That day when you weren't even there, but it was all so cool.
yes, unfortunately I missed that. :)
>
> Does the suchness give any clarity at all to that sort of state?
> Is it even remotely pointing at the moon? How remotely?
>
> I tend to read alt.zen, and just looked in on alt.philosophy.zen
> on a whim. Hey, Usenet is all dead now, anyway, isn't it?
> So don't feel the need to reply (and don't worry if I don't).
I will send to alt.zen if I can. But if you wish to converse, posting
to apz is the best bet.
>
> If only we could get fewer kooks this Usenet being dead thing
> could be a blessing in disguise...
those who survive will be stronger.
but this blast from the ISPs should be resisted.
usenet represents the wild underbelly of the Web.
it should be maintained if only for that reason.
it is closer to the big Bang then the rest of the [civilized] net.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
