Headless / Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

Here's my reply on headlessness:

 

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:24:59 Greg Goode wrote:

 

Nice self portrait.

 

"when I try to get hold of my lost head, I lose my hands as well"

 

.... yes, this seems to be correct...

 

I like this line:

 

"And though for me the head I'm looking out of is as transparent as the window I

happen also to be looking out of at this moment, it's as solid and as

actual-factual as the glass in that window."

 

And this:

 

"What false modesty it is, to deny these undeniable and heartening facts! What a

nonsense it is, this prime delusion of man, this belittling and indeed

self-mutilating conviction that he is what he looks like to other men!"

 

 

Whereas the headlessness seems to be merely a point

of speaking, one which may be remedied by a few hours

of martial arts to get the thinking mind in sync with

the rest of the mind-body, I find the 7 points about

perceivement to be the crux of the matter.

 

And I admit, Harding's exercises are fascinating

and he makes a good point with them.

 

"this original face of mine is faceless, this original head is headless."

 

Yes, that did make me think of a famous zen koan,

about "the true face", as Harding also mentions.

 

"Nevertheless I can find no evidence that my awareness of my divine nature

diminishes my animal-human nature. Rather the reverse. They dovetail neatly.

Divinity doesn't incarnate tentatively or half-heartedly. It calls nothing

common or unclean. It is no snob."

 

I like that view as well. It's a bit different from

the Gnostic view that all material is unclean,

including the human-animal body.

>Would you really say that perception happens inside >the body?

 

At least perception can be measured to cause internal

activity, as in re. MR scans that detect brain activity

when doing certain tasks.

>That is a

>different thing from saying that perception wouldn't happen if certain

>physical objects were not attached. If perception is physical, then maybe

>it happens inside. If perception is not physical, then it can't have a

>location.

 

Physical objects and sensations are felt as physical

sensation in the different sense organs that we harbor,

as

vision, hearing, balance, pain/no pain, position,

gustation etc.

 

The physical sensation is then "translated" into

energy for the sensations to be sent into and decoded

in the brain.

I suspect it is

in this translation that physical sense becomes

"no place" and "inside".

It is the brain/central nervous system =

mind-body which senses everything as electrical

impulses.

>Just because some perceptions seem to be accompanied by a sense

>of "here-ness" doesn't mean that the perception itself is here. That sense

>of here-ness itself is just another appearance.

 

Those are valid arguments, but:

If you perceive "hereness" as not being anywhere,

then how is it possible to say anything about it,

that it is neither here nor there ?

>If you are interested in this kind of enquiry, about the relationship

>bewteen the body and perception/sensation, then may I recommend a book?

>It's very special to me:

>

>THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS, by George Berkeley. Short,

>well written dialogues, arguing in exemplary style against the notion that

>there are really physical objects which are somehow perceived by our

>sensory apparatus.

 

If there are no physical objects anywhere

then what is making its impressions on the skin,

when holding a pen as weight, mass, or form ?

 

I do agree that the physical objects in themselves

cannot be perceived because everything has to be

filtered through our sensory

apparatus, but to assume that there are no physical

objects is a too wide step for me.

>Who is Berkeley? You know that old philosophical

>question about the tree in the forest, would it make a sound if no one were

>there to hear it? He's the guy in the 18th century >who answered "No."

 

I have only vaguely heard about the Berkeley school

a long time ago in univ. entrance exams.

>When I was in grad school going for a philosophy >doctorate,

 

That must mean you can argue successfully for

almost anything. But are you always right ?

>my teacher

>Colin Murray Turbayne was acknowledged as one of the world's great Berkeley

>scholars. But to get a good grade in his class, you could never write

>anything against Berkeley. So we had to study Berkeley really carefully,

>because his ideas sounded so utterly unintuitive, crazy really. After

>several months, they began to make sense.

 

It is often difficult to understand deep logics

and it deserves thorough study.

>Studying with Turbayne, I'd never encountered a philosopher in the Western

>tradition who ever adequately answered Berkeley. And Turbayne was like a

>bulldog, always sniffing, always on the lookout for >anti-Berkeley arguments.

 

Even if they were valid ?

>And since that time, over 16 years ago, I must say that any belief in any

>physical object, even my own body, has never again >occurred to me.

>Nevertheless, I learned to rollerblade just 5 years ago and have never been

>hit by a car. (I did have a very nasty accident crashing into a pothole a

>few evenings ago -- no more skating at night for me!)

 

 

Good to hear the fear of falling was dampened enough to

not refrain from learning to roller blade.

>Physical-type

>perceptions and ideas are a language, where each concept refers to other

>concepts in a growing and internally consistent way. But there's nothing

>Out There which any of these ideas refer to.

 

That is an interesting and smart sounding

philosophy.

 

But what do you think when you see starving children on

the street ?

 

I mean, I do see your point, but to say that all physical type perceptions are

irrelevant is not

something I'm ready for now.

 

I see the ego and mind-body as present, but not

being as

relevant as many ppl would have it to be. The ego

serves its purpose, but it shouldn't be the master of

the Self.

>In my case, it was an excellent shake-up, like a mental Vege-matic blender,

>preparing me for non-dualist teachings.

 

Good one.

 

A thought experiment: Would you miss the body

and physical sensations if

you were unable to use it, as per an involuntary

quadriplegic state ?

 

This is not meant as a snotty argument, but I'm

real curious how intellectual understanding can lead

to emotional acceptance in the face of certain

realities when arriving outside the ego's

perceived control.

 

You see, the other day

I saw a documentary about US pilot

Dieter Dengler who

was captured during the Vietnam war and tortured

for a long time by his captors. After having

survived a 5 months long stay in a pow camp, he

managed to escape into the jungle where he survived

under severe conditions on

absolute minimum of food for 2 months (?) in hellish

rain, parasites, no shoes, no food except the animals

he could catch by himself until he was discovered

by other pilots.

 

I always wonder how well philosphy holds up

under conditions like that, away from the safe

office chair.

 

I'll tell you how Dengler perceived his situation

later on.

 

Thanks for the book recom. I could really use it as

I don't really have read up on modern philosophers

since reading Desmond Morris a few years back.

And he's a biologist, not a philosopher

(although they used to be the same many years ago.)

 

Hope the advaita party was cool. The notion of a

advaita party was a little humorous.

Nobody saying anything, everybody just standing around

trying to perceive the Self. ))

 

Best regards,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com