on beauty and causation

[Guest guest]

Hi Dharma and Antoinne,

 

interesting conversation. I had a dramatic experience in my twenties -

drove my car at high speed into some woods - never mind the reasons;

what happened was that in the wee hours of the morning, I did so on a

country road, where coincidentally (?) an emergency rescue squad was the

only other vehicle on the road, and they saw the car go off the road,

into a stand of small trees, which bowed down and then sprang back up.

No one would have ever known anything had happened there had no one seen

the event itself. (kind of a Helen Keller thing I suppose...)

 

I've told this story before to justify my strong belief in guardian

angels and I'm struck now at this assignment of cause and effect to the

experience. Is it more beautiful if the synchronicity of a car going

off the road just as a rescue team is coming along was guided by a

higher spirit or if it is just a coincidence? Perhaps the distinction

is just an egotistical thought.

 

I remember hearing people complaining about physicists, how they ruin

the beauty of a rainbow by explaining how it happens. I used to think

that was silly, that the explanation adds to the beauty, certainly does

not subtract. I think now that it is a matter of attention. the direct

beauty of a rainbow is wonderful and the somewhat removed description of

the mechanism is also beautiful (to those who appreciate such things). I

suppose if one does not appreciate such things, the description of the

mechanism might displace the direct experience from consciousness, and

thereby "ruin the beauty."

 

Well, seems to me that a certain fluidity of attention that allows one

to appreciate whatever arises is the best of all worlds. So if the car

and the rescue team were guided, or not, both are stunning. the rainbow

and the physicists prattle about it are both beautiful. Caused or

uncaused, it's all quite astounding. the mystery that it might be both

caused and uncaused... wow.

 

 

Love, Mark

[Guest guest]

Ah Mark , yourself again... (Not that you never were, just a bit of

astigmatism, that's all :-)

(and Beth)

> I remember hearing people complaining about physicists, how they ruin

> the beauty of a rainbow by explaining how it happens. I used to think

> that was silly, that the explanation adds to the beauty, certainly does

> not subtract. I think now that it is a matter of attention. the direct

> beauty of a rainbow is wonderful and the somewhat removed description of

> the mechanism is also beautiful (to those who appreciate such things).

 

Would be a good answer to Beth as well.

 

Wasn't it Feynman who almost failed his PhD. examination because he could

not explain the rainbow... (Am sure he made something up that was totally

wrong but that he convinced his interrogators anyway.)

 

Love,

\/\///\/\

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

>interesting conversation. I had a dramatic experience in my twenties -

>drove my car at high speed into some woods - never mind the reasons;

>what happened was that in the wee hours of the morning, I did so on a

>country road, where coincidentally (?) an emergency rescue squad was the

>only other vehicle on the road, and they saw the car go off the road,

>into a stand of small trees, which bowed down and then sprang back up.

>No one would have ever known anything had happened there had no one seen

>the event itself. (kind of a Helen Keller thing I suppose...)

>

>I've told this story before to justify my strong belief in guardian

>angels

 

Yes! Somebody up there loves you.

> and I'm struck now at this assignment of cause and effect to the

>experience. Is it more beautiful if the synchronicity of a car going

>off the road just as a rescue team is coming along was guided by a

>higher spirit or if it is just a coincidence?

 

I'm not sure there is any "just coincidence." What if you take every

coincidence as synchronicity and ask yourself what you can learn from it?

 

>I remember hearing people complaining about physicists, how they ruin

>the beauty of a rainbow by explaining how it happens. I used to think

>that was silly, that the explanation adds to the beauty, certainly does

>not subtract. I think now that it is a matter of attention. the direct

>beauty of a rainbow is wonderful and the somewhat removed description of

>the mechanism is also beautiful (to those who appreciate such things). I

>suppose if one does not appreciate such things, the description of the

>mechanism might displace the direct experience from consciousness, and

>thereby "ruin the beauty."

>

>Well, seems to me that a certain fluidity of attention that allows one

>to appreciate whatever arises is the best of all worlds. So if the car

>and the rescue team were guided, or not, both are stunning. the rainbow

>and the physicists prattle about it are both beautiful. Caused or

>uncaused, it's all quite astounding. the mystery that it might be both

>caused and uncaused... wow.

 

And _there's_ an interesting thought!

 

Love,

Dharma