Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 <toombaru2003> wrote: > > Perhaps this is the land " east of Eden " > > This is the world...that the sages tell us is only a dream.....in that it exists only within our own head.... > > This is the non-place.... from which we hope to escape...... That is very good, Toomb. I love that meta4. That is an ancient maximum security penitentiary. Very few have escaped. Millenniums ago several prisoners dug a tunnel. It's rumored they all escaped and left instructions.The is a great debate going on among the inmates. Some say the tunnel is a myth, others claim the tunnel is real, but the instructions are fake. A small minority believes the prison itself isn't real and the only thing needed to do is walk away, but they never do. They claim they don't need to, they are already free. You see, the prison is freedom itself. Others believe the tunnel can only be found in absolute darkness and complete silence. That if one sits that way, the very floor one sits on will collapse and become the tunnel. In fact, some cells over the centuries have been found empty, and their prisoners have never been seen again. Skeptics dismiss these stories. There is no escape, there is no outside. Still a small band of brothers and sisters tap their plans to escape in the night over a mysterious secret wall called the net. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > <toombaru2003> wrote: > > > Perhaps this is the land " east of Eden " > > > > This is the world...that the sages tell us is only a dream.....in > that it > exists only within our own head.... > > > > This is the non-place.... from which we hope to escape...... > > That is very good, Toomb. I love that meta4. That is an ancient > maximum security penitentiary. Very few have escaped. Millenniums ago > several prisoners dug a tunnel. It's rumored they all escaped and left > instructions.The is a great debate going on among the inmates. Some > say the tunnel is a myth, others claim the tunnel is real, but the > instructions are fake. A small minority believes the prison itself > isn't real > and the only thing needed to do is walk away, but they never do. They > claim they > don't need to, they are already free. You see, the prison is freedom > itself. > Others believe the tunnel can only > be found in absolute darkness and complete silence. That if one sits > that way, the very floor one sits on will collapse and become the > tunnel. > In fact, some cells over the centuries have been found empty, and > their > prisoners have never been seen again. Skeptics dismiss these stories. > There is no escape, there is no outside. Still a small band of > brothers and > sisters tap their plans to escape in the night over a mysterious > secret wall > called the net. > > Pete Knowing full well that this orchid will be the kiss of death, but rather that than the onion, I have never seen the universe so well wrapped up; and in a swim suit no less. ----willy_m_pressed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > <toombaru2003> wrote: > > > Perhaps this is the land " east of Eden " > > > > This is the world...that the sages tell us is only a dream.....in > that it > exists only within our own head.... > > > > This is the non-place.... from which we hope to escape...... > > That is very good, Toomb. I love that meta4. That is an ancient > maximum security penitentiary. Very few have escaped. Millenniums ago > several prisoners dug a tunnel. It's rumored they all escaped and left > instructions.The is a great debate going on among the inmates. Some > say the tunnel is a myth, others claim the tunnel is real, but the > instructions are fake. A small minority believes the prison itself > isn't real > and the only thing needed to do is walk away, but they never do. They > claim they > don't need to, they are already free. You see, the prison is freedom > itself. > Others believe the tunnel can only > be found in absolute darkness and complete silence. That if one sits > that way, the very floor one sits on will collapse and become the > tunnel. > In fact, some cells over the centuries have been found empty, and > their > prisoners have never been seen again. Skeptics dismiss these stories. > There is no escape, there is no outside. Still a small band of > brothers and > sisters tap their plans to escape in the night over a mysterious > secret wall > called the net. > > Pete Ahhhhh Pete, I am breathless..... I can almost taste......freedom............ ..........in the tears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 > Bill, > > Here are some more thoughts: > > Early man began to symbolize his phsical reality and > assign sounds to communicate important survival > knowledge. > > It's important to have a special sound for 'bear' so one > knows to look and run. > > Some other animals have special utterance to signify the > source of danger....Prairie dogs have a special chirp for > raptors. When it is sounded, they all run to their holes. > > The neurons within the evolving human brain expanded > this capacity to include other items within the > enviornment.......and 'The Word' was born..... > What started as a survival enhachement tool evolved into > a devise that named and hence divided the flow of > physicality into a perceptual separation.... > > This ability to name and catagorize has obvious survival > advantages... but the inevitable course of this process > would lead to man seeing himself as separate..... > > ...When the development of words for that which was > directly experienced in the physical reality evolved into > conceptualization for that which was experienced only > within the mental realm...(feelings, memory, emotion etc) > a world that existed symbolically was created and exists > only within the mind of man. > > Perhaps this is the land " east of Eden " > > This is the world...that the sages tell us is only a > dream.....in that it exists only within our own head.... > > This is the non-place.... from which we hope to > escape...... I think is a clearer exposition of what your thoughts are on this subject than what you wrote before. Let me play with this a bit. Since you are effectively talking about the evolution of the brain I will speak in those terms. The brain can be considered to perform " simulations " to " try out " patterns of behavior *beforehand*. This can be an unconsious process. Consider a dog that is trying to solve a problem such as retrieve a bone from a place that is awkward to get at. You may have witnessed a dog in such a position where it *starts* to lunge in a certain direction and then pulls back, starts again in another way and then pulls back again. The dog had a " plan " but then abandoned it. The dog was able to simulate the outcome of the plan without actually carrying it out. Since ability to perform simulations is selectively advantageous we can expect the ability to do so to be highly developed. In the human such simulation activity may sometimes be noted as what is referred to as " imagination " . But even in the human such simulation will typically not be conscious. Notice that such simulation activity need not presume a notion of language. Now for where I am going with this: The " simulation " adaption mechanism taken on up through imagination as we know it in human behavior certain goes into the so-called " mental realm " of your thesis. And yet there is a gradual transition from much simpler life forms (such as the dog) up to the stage of human imagination. This, I suggest, demonstrates that there is not a clear distinction as you describe. I don't know at what stage such simulation mechanisms first appear (probably not in a worm?), but I expect in much simpler animals than a dog, and far before (again my conjecture) anything like language can be said to emerge. Indeed, I expect that language could be reasonably explored as a possible " externalization " of the simulation mechanism. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Bill, > > > > Here are some more thoughts: > > > > Early man began to symbolize his phsical reality and > > assign sounds to communicate important survival > > knowledge. > > > > It's important to have a special sound for 'bear' so one > > knows to look and run. > > > > Some other animals have special utterance to signify the > > source of danger....Prairie dogs have a special chirp for > > raptors. When it is sounded, they all run to their holes. > > > > The neurons within the evolving human brain expanded > > this capacity to include other items within the > > enviornment.......and 'The Word' was born..... > > > > > What started as a survival enhachement tool evolved into > > a devise that named and hence divided the flow of > > physicality into a perceptual separation.... > > > > This ability to name and catagorize has obvious survival > > advantages... but the inevitable course of this process > > would lead to man seeing himself as separate..... > > > > ...When the development of words for that which was > > directly experienced in the physical reality evolved into > > conceptualization for that which was experienced only > > within the mental realm...(feelings, memory, emotion etc) > > a world that existed symbolically was created and exists > > only within the mind of man. > > > > Perhaps this is the land " east of Eden " > > > > This is the world...that the sages tell us is only a > > dream.....in that it exists only within our own head.... > > > > This is the non-place.... from which we hope to > > escape...... > > I think is a clearer exposition of what your thoughts > are on this subject than what you wrote before. > > Let me play with this a bit. > > Since you are effectively talking about the evolution > of the brain I will speak in those terms. The brain > can be considered to perform " simulations " to " try > out " patterns of behavior *beforehand*. This can be an > unconsious process. Consider a dog that is trying to > solve a problem such as retrieve a bone from a place > that is awkward to get at. You may have witnessed a > dog in such a position where it *starts* to lunge in a > certain direction and then pulls back, starts again in > another way and then pulls back again. The dog had a > " plan " but then abandoned it. The dog was able to > simulate the outcome of the plan without actually > carrying it out. Since ability to perform simulations > is selectively advantageous we can expect the ability > to do so to be highly developed. > > In the human such simulation activity may sometimes > be noted as what is referred to as " imagination " . > But even in the human such simulation will typically > not be conscious. > > Notice that such simulation activity need not presume > a notion of language. > > Now for where I am going with this: > > The " simulation " adaption mechanism taken on up > through imagination as we know it in human behavior > certain goes into the so-called " mental realm " of your > thesis. And yet there is a gradual transition from > much simpler life forms (such as the dog) up to the > stage of human imagination. This, I suggest, > demonstrates that there is not a clear distinction > as you describe. I don't know at what stage such > simulation mechanisms first appear (probably not > in a worm?), but I expect in much simpler animals > than a dog, and far before (again my conjecture) > anything like language can be said to emerge. > Indeed, I expect that language could be reasonably > explored as a possible " externalization " of the > simulation mechanism. > > > Bill It becomes obvious that it is very difficult for language to discuss its own origins. It has no words for the time when it had no words...:-) Language concerning physicality is once removed from reality after flowing through the filters of sensate interpretation. I think that the problem is akin to a man (which is himsef only a conceptual construct) searching for his own origin.....a task made doubly difficult since nature left him with only a vestigial tail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Toombaru wrote: > It becomes obvious that it is very difficult for language to discuss its own origins. > > It has no words for the time when it had no words...:-) sk: Hmm...subconscoiusness again as item? To give something a name is a posterior development of conceptualisation. I don't think the word is the problem (it is just a tool) as long someone accepts, Freud's allegory of the ball of wool, that even the verbalisations of subconscious circumstances have a priori no borders. If there is or not a node in the center of the ball of wool (subconsciousness) has no relevance, in terms of psychoanalytical art, because it isn't reachable by words and has also no relevance regarding therapeutical intentions. This has a distinctly other quality regarding spiritual issues. > > Language concerning physicality is once removed from reality after flowing through the filters of sensate interpretation. sk: I don't understand this, toombaru. What do you mean with " language concerning physicality " ? I don't think language has to be removed from nothing or, that itself, removes something after being filtered by sensate interpretation. Are you talking here about 2 types of language? The " language " which corresponds reality and the language which removes reality. Would the " bliss & grace thingy " correspond to the first? So to say, the " language of love " , coming unfiltered through sensate interpretation but, although, coherently verbalised. Isn't that poetry? Is there a poetry which is better than another? What makes one poem different to another? > I think that the problem is akin to a man (which is himsef only a conceptual construct) searching for his own origin.....a task made doubly difficult since nature left him with only a vestigial tail. sk: You implicate by suggestively an unperfect nature concerning the dignity of man regarding his search for origin. I don't think that the " conceptual construct " called man, the socio-cultural development which led to our individually and collectively representation of reality has much to do with the classical understandement of nature. Nature didn't left man with only a vestigial tail, quite the contrary, in my opinion :-)) It is a little childish to blame nature for the shortcommings and insufficiencies of our conceptual constructions, isn't it? Nature gave as the tools to construct and we constructed. But the tools are equally eligible to deconstruct... much more to say, but I haven't time now... Thanx! sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <sk000005> wrote: > Toombaru wrote: > > > > It becomes obvious that it is very difficult for language to > discuss its own origins. > > > > It has no words for the time when it had no words...:-) > > > sk: Hmm...subconscoiusness again as item? To give something a name > is a posterior development of conceptualisation. I don't think the > word is the problem (it is just a tool) as long someone accepts, > Freud's allegory of the ball of wool, that even the verbalisations > of subconscious circumstances have a priori no borders. If there is > or not a node in the center of the ball of wool (subconsciousness) > has no relevance, in terms of psychoanalytical art, because it isn't > reachable by words and has also no relevance regarding therapeutical > intentions. This has a distinctly other quality regarding spiritual > issues. > > > > > > > Language concerning physicality is once removed from reality after > flowing through the filters of sensate interpretation. > > > > sk: I don't understand this, toombaru. What do you mean > with " language concerning physicality " ? I don't think language has > to be removed from nothing or, that itself, removes something after > being filtered by sensate interpretation. Are you talking here about > 2 types of language? The " language " which corresponds reality and > the language which removes reality. Would the " bliss & grace thingy " > correspond to the first? So to say, the " language of love " , coming > unfiltered through sensate interpretation but, although, coherently > verbalised. Isn't that poetry? Is there a poetry which is better > than another? What makes one poem different to another? > > > > > > I think that the problem is akin to a man (which is himsef only a > conceptual construct) searching for his own origin.....a task made > doubly difficult since nature left him with only a vestigial tail. > > > sk: You implicate by suggestively an unperfect nature concerning the > dignity of man regarding his search for origin. I don't think that > the " conceptual construct " called man, the socio-cultural > development which led to our individually and collectively > representation of reality has much to do with the classical > understandement of nature. Nature didn't left man with only a > vestigial tail, quite the contrary, in my opinion :-)) It is a > little childish to blame nature for the shortcommings and > insufficiencies of our conceptual constructions, isn't it? Nature > gave as the tools to construct and we constructed. But the tools are > equally eligible to deconstruct... > > much more to say, but I haven't time now... > > > Thanx! > > > sk Hi sk, Here are some rambling thoughts that were stimulated by your post: When electricity was first studied, after giving it a name, it was observed to behave in certain predictable ways....and in an attempt to understand more about about it, certain words had to be developed: amps, volts, watts were invented to describe what it does. (as opposed to what it is). 'Watts' is a description of the observable and measureable behavior of the phenonmenon given the name 'electricity'. When an observation is given a name....there follows an intelectual assumption of it separate reality....There may be such a thing as 'electricity' but it is not inclosed within a name....and there certainly is no such thing and 'watt' 'amp' or 'volt'. The mind has no other way to think about 'reality' other then this conceptual separation...(it being the process itself) ........and when it conceptualizes its observations of things non-material (psychology, philosophy, religion etc)....it is three times removed from what is. We are using the wrong tool to find ourselves...The function of language is to describe and divide........ You can't build a house...with a hatchet. Language...separation...and 'I Am' emerge and subside simultaneously. They are the same phenomenon..... 'You' are not different from the vastness in which they swim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.