Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Bob wrote: " In the Beginning was the Verb and the Verb was with..... " ~~~~ That's fun! Reminds me of a book by Buckminster Fuller titled: *I Seem to be a Verb* There is also a quote by him: " God is a verb, not a noun proper or improper. " The quote kinda fits with Bob's playful verse. Note that when we try to de-noun/verb-ize someTHING we end up (typically) going for a gerund, like: Being But that is really a noun in drag. The beauty about What Is is that even though a noun phrase it seems clear that you can't " identify " it. I.e. the beauty of What Is is that it has no *handle*. What that means is that we can't actually contemplate What Is, per se. We can't " objectify " it. Even referring to " it " with that pronoun does not succeed in objectifying it. And the thing I find interesting is that people do seem to get that, at least such as participate on this and similar lists. Since What Is resists our analysis, since it will not sit still under the microscope of the mind, at some point we realize that we can only surrender, accept, allow, with wide-open attention. Is that scary? NAUGH! Bill Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > > Re: Happy Daze Compiled > > > > > > T: The oddest of the odd: > > > > > > Mind is able to cognize its own vacuity. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > B: or is it vacuity cognizing mind? > > > > > > P: Or... is it just... simply ...cognizance. > > > > > > > Funny you say that... > > > > After writing my little comment, and just before > > slipping into a nap, I was reflecting on how with > > the phrase " mind cognizing vacuity " or " vacuity > > cognizing mind " -- either one -- there is a verb > > in the middle and a noun on either end. I trust > > the verb more than the nouns. > > > > I was recently reading a far-out paper on " conceptual > > modeling " (re software) and this particular author > > is very deep. He was bringing in philosophy, even > > mentioning Wittgenstein. > > > > At one point he said that he noticed that different > > information modelers seemed to be trying to get > > down to the " atom " of stuff, and to then build up > > from that. But finding the right atoms always seemed > > kinda quirky. He noticed that whatever atoms one came > > up with, those atoms always ended up having different > > *behaviors*. So then he realized that behavior was > > more fundamental than " things " . > > > > Kinda cool, huh? > > > > > > Bill > > > This is cool stuff Bill. I had always learned that subjects came > before verbs, and objects came after verbs.. in the English language > way of constructing things. Now we know verbs come first and then > subjects and objects come later. " In the Beginning was the Verb and > the Verb was with..... " Oh well I'm trying to get it..I'm an > abecedarian in this whole new field. LOL.....bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Bob wrote: > " In the Beginning was the Verb and > the Verb was with..... " > ~~~~ > That's fun! > > Reminds me of a book by Buckminster Fuller > titled: *I Seem to be a Verb* > > There is also a quote by him: > " God is a verb, not a noun proper or improper. " > > The quote kinda fits with Bob's playful verse. > > Note that when we try to de-noun/verb-ize someTHING > we end up (typically) going for a gerund, like: Being > But that is really a noun in drag. > > The beauty about What Is is that even though a noun > phrase it seems clear that you can't " identify " it. > I.e. the beauty of What Is is that it has no *handle*. > > What that means is that we can't actually contemplate > What Is, per se. We can't " objectify " it. Even referring > to " it " with that pronoun does not succeed in objectifying > it. > > And the thing I find interesting is that people do seem > to get that, at least such as participate on this and > similar lists. > > Since What Is resists our analysis, since it will not > sit still under the microscope of the mind, at some > point we realize that we can only surrender, accept, > allow, with wide-open attention. > > Is that scary? > > NAUGH! > > > Bill > > Bill..this is great! Are you a Fuller fan. I am. Of those few insightful people that I admire on an intellectual level, without casting comments on his lack of or undoing of spiritual recognition as so many do, it is my feeling that of those within the parameters of human intellection AS SUCH, he is not often equaled. Kant certainly was his match, but much was developed after him in the dialectic of philosophy, and I believe Bucky had the ball after and since. Wittgenstein comes close as well as G. Spencer Brown, but we start getting very mathematically constrained at this point I think. Anyway your comments on surrender and finally on illusary fear('is that scary) are terrific to ponder in wide open SPACE of Attention. thanks...bob > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Re: Happy Daze Compiled > > > > > > > > T: The oddest of the odd: > > > > > > > > Mind is able to cognize its own vacuity. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > B: or is it vacuity cognizing mind? > > > > > > > > P: Or... is it just... simply ...cognizance. > > > > > > > > > > Funny you say that... > > > > > > After writing my little comment, and just before > > > slipping into a nap, I was reflecting on how with > > > the phrase " mind cognizing vacuity " or " vacuity > > > cognizing mind " -- either one -- there is a verb > > > in the middle and a noun on either end. I trust > > > the verb more than the nouns. > > > > > > I was recently reading a far-out paper on " conceptual > > > modeling " (re software) and this particular author > > > is very deep. He was bringing in philosophy, even > > > mentioning Wittgenstein. > > > > > > At one point he said that he noticed that different > > > information modelers seemed to be trying to get > > > down to the " atom " of stuff, and to then build up > > > from that. But finding the right atoms always seemed > > > kinda quirky. He noticed that whatever atoms one came > > > up with, those atoms always ended up having different > > > *behaviors*. So then he realized that behavior was > > > more fundamental than " things " . > > > > > > Kinda cool, huh? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > This is cool stuff Bill. I had always learned that subjects came > > before verbs, and objects came after verbs.. in the English > language > > way of constructing things. Now we know verbs come first and then > > subjects and objects come later. " In the Beginning was the Verb and > > the Verb was with..... " Oh well I'm trying to get it..I'm an > > abecedarian in this whole new field. LOL.....bob > > > 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.