Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder and then > act, > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. Buddhamind-- > Is > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as your " diving > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like Trungpa > did, but > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail and > testing each > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , I'll > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > Bill > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered behavior-- > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than any other > behavior? > Yes. Which is what my definition says. What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. For example, if one were to posit that: a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming in the organism b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is strictly by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created by activation of programming] then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real distinction. Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such programming having been " evolved out " of the system. My point of view is more or less the latter above. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder and then > > act, > > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. Buddhamind-- > > Is > > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as your " diving > > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like Trungpa > > did, but > > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail and > > testing each > > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , I'll > > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered behavior-- > > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than any other > > behavior? > > > > Yes. Which is what my definition says. > What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. > > I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is > a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that > one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. > > For example, if one were to posit that: > a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming > in the organism > b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is strictly > by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " > themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any > " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created > by activation of programming] > then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous > or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real > distinction. > > Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different > conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming > that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such > programming having been " evolved out " of the system. > > My point of view is more or less the latter above. > > > Bill Thankks for your elucidation. I know there are people who use the programming metaphor. I don't know anything about that. As far as I can see things just happen. You can call that programming. So be it.If I ever find the programmer and I look into his mind I am sure that I will find that things just happen there just as they do with me. What else could they do? It happens that a person dives down a flight of stairs.He may have reasoned about it or not. If he did reason about it then that process happened before the other process-- the arising of the thought that said: Let's dive!. Have you ever " created " a thought? Have you ever " created " a reason? They are like birds--if the bird flys into your sky, then you have a bird in your sky. If it doesn't fly in--well I guess you'll have to get some feathers and some glue and " create " one. Haha. I am just fooling. I realize that is not your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder and > then > > > act, > > > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. > Buddhamind-- > > > Is > > > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as > your " diving > > > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like Trungpa > > > did, but > > > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail and > > > testing each > > > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , I'll > > > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered > behavior-- > > > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than any > other > > > behavior? > > > > > > > Yes. Which is what my definition says. > > What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. > > > > I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is > > a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that > > one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. > > > > For example, if one were to posit that: > > a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming > > in the organism > > b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is strictly > > by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " > > themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any > > " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created > > by activation of programming] > > then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous > > or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real > > distinction. > > > > Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different > > conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming > > that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such > > programming having been " evolved out " of the system. > > > > My point of view is more or less the latter above. > > > > > > Bill > Thankks for your elucidation. I know there are people who use the > programming metaphor. I don't know anything about that. As far as I > can see things just happen. You can call that programming. So be > it.If I ever find the programmer and I look into his mind I am sure > that I will find that things just happen there just as they do with > me. What else could they do? It happens that a person dives down a > flight of stairs.He may have reasoned about it or not. If he did > reason about it then that process happened before the other process-- > the arising of the thought that said: Let's dive!. Have you > ever " created " a thought? Have you ever " created " a reason? They > are like birds--if the bird flys into your sky, then you have a bird > in your sky. If it doesn't fly in--well I guess you'll have to get > some feathers and some glue and " create " one. Haha. I am just > fooling. I realize that is not your position. re: " I realize that is not your position. " I actually don't see what you say above as at odds with what I said. " Programming " as I used the term is not a computer programming metaphor. I am talking more in terms of the brain. If your phone rings and you pick the phone up you don't need to think about it. You just automatically pick the phone up. I once observed -- way before I knew anything about computers -- how drinking from a drinking fountain is a complex behavior that involves bending over in the right way in coordination with pressing/turning the water-on faucet, tilking the head to the side in the right way, positioned just the right way with the mouth opened in just the right way, then adjusting that position so the stream of water enters the opened mouth, then progressively drawing the water into the mouth and swallowing. Yet when getting a drink from a drinking fountain we just bend over and " get a drink " ! The learned pattern of getting a drink from a fountain -- composed of several sub-patterns -- is an example of what I called a " program " . In psychology it is also called a " conditioning " . That behavior " just happens " -- in my view -- is a result of conditioning. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder and > > then > > > > act, > > > > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. > > Buddhamind-- > > > > Is > > > > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as > > your " diving > > > > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like Trungpa > > > > did, but > > > > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail and > > > > testing each > > > > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > > > > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , I'll > > > > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > > > > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > > > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > > > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > > > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered > > behavior-- > > > > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than any > > other > > > > behavior? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Which is what my definition says. > > > What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. > > > > > > I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is > > > a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that > > > one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. > > > > > > For example, if one were to posit that: > > > a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming > > > in the organism > > > b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is strictly > > > by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " > > > themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any > > > " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created > > > by activation of programming] > > > then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous > > > or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real > > > distinction. > > > > > > Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different > > > conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming > > > that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such > > > programming having been " evolved out " of the system. > > > > > > My point of view is more or less the latter above. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > Thankks for your elucidation. I know there are people who use the > > programming metaphor. I don't know anything about that. As far as I > > can see things just happen. You can call that programming. So be > > it.If I ever find the programmer and I look into his mind I am sure > > that I will find that things just happen there just as they do with > > me. What else could they do? It happens that a person dives down a > > flight of stairs.He may have reasoned about it or not. If he did > > reason about it then that process happened before the other process-- > > the arising of the thought that said: Let's dive!. Have you > > ever " created " a thought? Have you ever " created " a reason? They > > are like birds--if the bird flys into your sky, then you have a bird > > in your sky. If it doesn't fly in--well I guess you'll have to get > > some feathers and some glue and " create " one. Haha. I am just > > fooling. I realize that is not your position. > > re: " I realize that is not your position. " > > I actually don't see what you say above as at odds > with what I said. > > " Programming " as I used the term is not a computer > programming metaphor. I am talking more in terms of > the brain. If your phone rings and you pick the > phone up you don't need to think about it. You just > automatically pick the phone up. > > I once observed -- way before I knew anything about > computers -- how drinking from a drinking fountain > is a complex behavior that involves bending over in > the right way in coordination with pressing/turning > the water-on faucet, tilking the head to the side in > the right way, positioned just the right way with the > mouth opened in just the right way, then adjusting > that position so the stream of water enters the opened > mouth, then progressively drawing the water into the > mouth and swallowing. > > Yet when getting a drink from a drinking fountain we > just bend over and " get a drink " ! > > The learned pattern of getting a drink from a fountain > -- composed of several sub-patterns -- is an example of > what I called a " program " . In psychology it is also called > a " conditioning " . > > That behavior " just happens " -- in my view -- is a > result of conditioning. > > Bill > Yes, we must slowly learn things like using a fountain. I play the guitar a little. It takes me may painful repetitions of a piece before I can begin to play it from memory. Then many many more until I can play it at a steady rate and many more before I can play it so that my mind is free to watch certain aspects of the perfomance with detachment. But through all that process of conditioning, each act that led to the conditioning was a happening.It was spontaneous.The brain pattern was spontaneously built up stroke by stroke. And while I think of it--what is conditioning but a concept that stands for a mystery?I must say that every time my finger oer thumb strikes a string, I haven't the faintest idea where the impulse originated or how it got itself accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder > and > > > then > > > > > act, > > > > > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. > > > Buddhamind-- > > > > > Is > > > > > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as > > > your " diving > > > > > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like > Trungpa > > > > > did, but > > > > > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail > and > > > > > testing each > > > > > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , > I'll > > > > > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > > > > > > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > > > > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > > > > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > > > > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered > > > behavior-- > > > > > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than > any > > > other > > > > > behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Which is what my definition says. > > > > What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. > > > > > > > > I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is > > > > a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that > > > > one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. > > > > > > > > For example, if one were to posit that: > > > > a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming > > > > in the organism > > > > b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is > strictly > > > > by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " > > > > themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any > > > > " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created > > > > by activation of programming] > > > > then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous > > > > or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real > > > > distinction. > > > > > > > > Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different > > > > conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming > > > > that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such > > > > programming having been " evolved out " of the system. > > > > > > > > My point of view is more or less the latter above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > Thankks for your elucidation. I know there are people who use > the > > > programming metaphor. I don't know anything about that. As far > as I > > > can see things just happen. You can call that programming. So be > > > it.If I ever find the programmer and I look into his mind I am > sure > > > that I will find that things just happen there just as they do > with > > > me. What else could they do? It happens that a person dives down > a > > > flight of stairs.He may have reasoned about it or not. If he did > > > reason about it then that process happened before the other > process-- > > > the arising of the thought that said: Let's dive!. Have you > > > ever " created " a thought? Have you ever " created " a reason? > They > > > are like birds--if the bird flys into your sky, then you have a > bird > > > in your sky. If it doesn't fly in--well I guess you'll have to > get > > > some feathers and some glue and " create " one. Haha. I am just > > > fooling. I realize that is not your position. > > > > re: " I realize that is not your position. " > > > > I actually don't see what you say above as at odds > > with what I said. > > > > " Programming " as I used the term is not a computer > > programming metaphor. I am talking more in terms of > > the brain. If your phone rings and you pick the > > phone up you don't need to think about it. You just > > automatically pick the phone up. > > > > I once observed -- way before I knew anything about > > computers -- how drinking from a drinking fountain > > is a complex behavior that involves bending over in > > the right way in coordination with pressing/turning > > the water-on faucet, tilking the head to the side in > > the right way, positioned just the right way with the > > mouth opened in just the right way, then adjusting > > that position so the stream of water enters the opened > > mouth, then progressively drawing the water into the > > mouth and swallowing. > > > > Yet when getting a drink from a drinking fountain we > > just bend over and " get a drink " ! > > > > The learned pattern of getting a drink from a fountain > > -- composed of several sub-patterns -- is an example of > > what I called a " program " . In psychology it is also called > > a " conditioning " . > > > > That behavior " just happens " -- in my view -- is a > > result of conditioning. > > > > Bill > > > Yes, we must slowly learn things like using a fountain. I play the > guitar a little. It takes me may painful repetitions of a piece > before I can begin to play it from memory. Then many many more until > I can play it at a steady rate and many more before I can play it > so that my mind is free to watch certain aspects of the perfomance > with detachment. But through all that process of conditioning, each > act that led to the conditioning was a happening.It was > spontaneous.The brain pattern was spontaneously built up stroke by > stroke. And while I think of it--what is conditioning but a concept > that stands for a mystery?I must say that every time my finger oer > thumb strikes a string, I haven't the faintest idea where the > impulse originated or how it got itself accomplished. > re: " what is conditioning but a concept that stands for a mystery? " an intriguing notion... which brings me to wonder if that doesn't apply rather broadly to many concepts, such as spontaniety, detachment, memory -- just as a quick sample from your paragraph above. re: " I must say that every time my finger or thumb strikes a string, I haven't the faintest idea where the impulse originated or how it got itself accomplished. " yes, and to what does that not apply? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Buddhamind is spontaneous--you dont stop and ponder > > and > > > > then > > > > > > act, > > > > > > > > you just dive in. Well, I am here to ask this of Mr. > > > > Buddhamind-- > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > not that stop and pondering just as spontaneous as > > > > your " diving > > > > > > > > in " .Because I don't hurl myself down staircases like > > Trungpa > > > > > > did, but > > > > > > > > go carefully and gingerly down hanging on to the rail > > and > > > > > > testing each > > > > > > > > step Am I being any less spontaneous than he? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you effectively beg a definition for " spontaneous " , > > I'll > > > > > > > comply with: absence of " considered behavior " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I relate to the point you make. As I see it, living with > > > > > > > complete spontaniety is to have no notion of one's own > > > > > > > behavior at all. One's own behavior is as much a surprise > > > > > > > as that of the next fellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > >Your definition of spontaneous as absence of considered > > > > behavior-- > > > > > > do you think considered behavior is less spontaneous than > > any > > > > other > > > > > > behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Which is what my definition says. > > > > > What is non-spontaneous behavior = what is considered behavior. > > > > > > > > > > I define it that way because the notion of spontaniety is > > > > > a useful one if defined in that way. That doesn't mean that > > > > > one couldn't provide very different definitions of spontaniety. > > > > > > > > > > For example, if one were to posit that: > > > > > a) all behavior is expression of some sort of programming > > > > > in the organism > > > > > b) the initiation of any programming in the organism is > > strictly > > > > > by *other* programming, with any sense of " will " or " intent " > > > > > themselves being simply forms of programming [i.e. any > > > > > " agency " involved in behavior is only an appearance created > > > > > by activation of programming] > > > > > then one could argue that *all* behavior is either spontaneous > > > > > or non-spontaneous (take your pick) as there is no real > > > > > distinction. > > > > > > > > > > Or, one could posit a) and b) and come to a rather different > > > > > conclusion by defining spontaneity as absence of programming > > > > > that creates the appearance of agency in behavior, such > > > > > programming having been " evolved out " of the system. > > > > > > > > > > My point of view is more or less the latter above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Thankks for your elucidation. I know there are people who use > > the > > > > programming metaphor. I don't know anything about that. As far > > as I > > > > can see things just happen. You can call that programming. So be > > > > it.If I ever find the programmer and I look into his mind I am > > sure > > > > that I will find that things just happen there just as they do > > with > > > > me. What else could they do? It happens that a person dives down > > a > > > > flight of stairs.He may have reasoned about it or not. If he did > > > > reason about it then that process happened before the other > > process-- > > > > the arising of the thought that said: Let's dive!. Have you > > > > ever " created " a thought? Have you ever " created " a reason? > > They > > > > are like birds--if the bird flys into your sky, then you have a > > bird > > > > in your sky. If it doesn't fly in--well I guess you'll have to > > get > > > > some feathers and some glue and " create " one. Haha. I am just > > > > fooling. I realize that is not your position. > > > > > > re: " I realize that is not your position. " > > > > > > I actually don't see what you say above as at odds > > > with what I said. > > > > > > " Programming " as I used the term is not a computer > > > programming metaphor. I am talking more in terms of > > > the brain. If your phone rings and you pick the > > > phone up you don't need to think about it. You just > > > automatically pick the phone up. > > > > > > I once observed -- way before I knew anything about > > > computers -- how drinking from a drinking fountain > > > is a complex behavior that involves bending over in > > > the right way in coordination with pressing/turning > > > the water-on faucet, tilking the head to the side in > > > the right way, positioned just the right way with the > > > mouth opened in just the right way, then adjusting > > > that position so the stream of water enters the opened > > > mouth, then progressively drawing the water into the > > > mouth and swallowing. > > > > > > Yet when getting a drink from a drinking fountain we > > > just bend over and " get a drink " ! > > > > > > The learned pattern of getting a drink from a fountain > > > -- composed of several sub-patterns -- is an example of > > > what I called a " program " . In psychology it is also called > > > a " conditioning " . > > > > > > That behavior " just happens " -- in my view -- is a > > > result of conditioning. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Yes, we must slowly learn things like using a fountain. I play the > > guitar a little. It takes me may painful repetitions of a piece > > before I can begin to play it from memory. Then many many more until > > I can play it at a steady rate and many more before I can play it > > so that my mind is free to watch certain aspects of the perfomance > > with detachment. But through all that process of conditioning, each > > act that led to the conditioning was a happening.It was > > spontaneous.The brain pattern was spontaneously built up stroke by > > stroke. And while I think of it--what is conditioning but a concept > > that stands for a mystery?I must say that every time my finger oer > > thumb strikes a string, I haven't the faintest idea where the > > impulse originated or how it got itself accomplished. > > > > re: " what is conditioning but a concept that stands for a mystery? " > an intriguing notion... > which brings me to wonder if that doesn't apply rather broadly > to many concepts, such as spontaniety, detachment, memory -- just > as a quick sample from your paragraph above. > > re: " I must say that every time my finger or > thumb strikes a string, I haven't the faintest idea where the > impulse originated or how it got itself accomplished. " > yes, and to what does that not apply? > > > Bill >It applies to everything. We are beings without bearings--except ficticious ones like the 'I " and the locator sense--the sense that we always have some idea where we are in space. 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.