gimme some of that big-box religion
ed riddle's metaphysical doodles
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 12:29 PM
Edrid sez:
1. There really aren't any thoughts. We just think there are.
2. When we buy into there being thoughts, we haven't really bought into there being thoughts. We just buy into thinking that we did buy into them.
3. Awareness of awareness is just a phenomenon of awareness. There really isn't even awareness. There's just this.
4. There is one universe. It must be so: that's what we mean by uni- (one) verse (turning).
5. Whatever the universe is, it must be made of something very far out and mysterious that allows this individualized awareness to arise.
6. Individualized awareness is capable of directly knowing that it exists. It must be so because... well, it is self-evident.
7. There is one direct knowing per individual.
8. There is no separation between individuals. It must be so because we both are."
And then I say: the "this" at the end of item 3, and items 5 and 6 trip me out; rock my world, make me go whoa! Very, very tasty.
I'm not so sure about 4, 7, and 8. 4 and 8 don't seem logical or prove-able or something, in a "B does not necessarily follow a" sort of way. 7 seems like it *might* be true, but I can easily imagine that it's not as well.... also, 7 seems time bound. Right now, I have this direct knowing, and right now (a couple seconds later) I have this other direct knowing... so 7 is only true if we determine that me the individual right now is different than me the individual right now (a few seconds later).... :-)
Which of these, if any, rocks yer world or trips you up?
(image by Naive John www.naivejohn.com/. Don't miss this other image (NWS) www.naivejohn.com/statement.html, and his quotes:
"The most anti-establishment gesture an artist can make today is to paint a thought-provoking picture that is beautiful. Artists are afraid of the 'craft' word so we should probably look in that direction for some sustenance."
"Beware of those who would have you believe that 'historically significant' artists lay claim to higher truths. They don't."
"Art history is completely arbitrary and is defined by collectors not artists."
"The 'high' in High Art means highly up its own arse.")
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 12:29 PM -
permalink -
17 Comments
17 Comments |
add a comment |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 2:51 PM
I see your issue with 4 and 8, except I accept them as word play. By dissembling "universe" into its etomlogical components, a definition is reached. Using the term we "are", includes us in a way that voids our individuality. Number 1 seems to be a simple contradiction to Descartes' proposition. Number 2 is more of number 1. That leaves 3, 5, and 7 (6 is self-evident).
3 seems like wordplay, too. The "this" is open to individual interpretation, sounds different than "awareness", but probably equates to that for the reader nonetheless. 5 contains a syllogistic mistake, if it's an assertion at all. Finally, I leave with an old programmers' axiom: One must learn recursion before one can learn recursion. 7 sounds like how I might describe consciousness or awareness. And, like you, that awareness is momentary, without the history of its awareness, and without the forethought of future awareness. My direct knowing encompasses only that which I manage to comprehend, and in the terms I comprehend them. Yes, 7 seems the most interesting to me. |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 2:54 PM
Move my "final" statement to the end of my response, and it voids my error.
|
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:12 PM
"Finally, I leave with an old programmers' axiom: One must learn recursion before one can learn recursion."
That's very, very funny! |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:17 PM
"Yes, 7 seems the most interesting to me"
So do you think there is really only one direct knowing per individual, even in the moment? What about multi-channel input, sensory or super-sensory? Things we (or part of us) know(s) without knowing.... This one's kind of at odds with 8, too. |
|
Unsu...
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:25 PM
crap...my head is spinning.
i know that is not a meaty intellectual response, nor challenging. it just is. |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:28 PM
"crap...my head is spinning."
V, have you ever practiced watching your own awareness? A meditation on being aware of awareness? As opposed to, say, falling into thoughts about what happened yesterday, or what's going to happen tomorrow, coulda-woulda-shoulda, fantasies, worries, whatever? Just getting anchored in awareness of the moment, and then pulling back, to watch your own awareness? It's fascinating, but not head-spinny at all.... |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:39 PM
> So do you think there is really only one direct knowing per individual, even in the moment?
Yes. Probably. I venture that it is the definition of "knowing" that bears the weight of understanding. > What about multi-channel input, sensory or super-sensory? Things we (or part of us) know(s) without knowing.... Yeah. What about it? Is sensation knowledge? Perhaps another way to ponder this is to consider knowledge vs. intuition. I define intuition as knowledge without learning. Many of us place high trust in our intuition, elevating it to the status of experienced knowledge. Others, rely little upon it. But in either case, don't we simply infer what makes sense, true or not? That seems to suggest a single direct knowing for each of us. |
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 3:55 PM
"Yeah. What about it? Is sensation knowledge? Perhaps another way to ponder this is to consider knowledge vs. intuition. I define intuition as knowledge without learning. Many of us place high trust in our intuition, elevating it to the status of experienced knowledge. Others, rely little upon it. But in either case, don't we simply infer what makes sense, true or not? That seems to suggest a single direct knowing for each of us. "
I think there are situations where all the data I can collect about things results in me intellectually knowing something, while, meanwhile, another part of me (intuition, subsconscious, limbic system.... ) knows whatever it is in another, completely different way. I'm not sure I do them both at the exact same time, though; may be asynchronous. Thing is, I used to be all left brained, to the point of myopia - BSME, BSCS, math freak, etc.... it wasn't true if it wasn't measurable, repeatable etc... I confused the ability to predict and model a phenomenon with knowing what a phenomenon _is_ (words fail). There are some things for which I believe I know what they 'are' in some deep sense that all the science in the world can't get me to. And I'm more and more aware of how my physicality sets limits on my own understanding and knowledge of the universe...(words fail). And yeah, I sense that there seems to be a single direct knowing for each of us.... I'm just not sure.... |
|
Unsu...
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 4:21 PM
yes, i have. for almost six years now, i have been meditating for an hour first thing in the morning. it is amazing. it's the verbal exhcange between you two, that spins my head a bit. but i like it!
|
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 4:55 PM
Interesting. It always surprises me when I learn that other people are using the "put your awareness on awareness" thing. I don't know why it surprises me, but it does. I guess there aren't as many methodologies as I think there are, and the awareness on awareness thing isn't an odd, quirky backwater like I think it is....
|
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 4:57 PM
"it's the verbal exhcange between you two..."
I groove on Big Mike :-) He groks my inner geek :-) |
|
Unsu...
|
Fri, April 6, 2007 - 8:55 PM
yes, Big Mike has a Big Brain, like yourself. It is quite a pleasure reading your exhcange. Nothing sexier than a brilliant mind(s). I think you are way beyong 'geek'...there must be a better word~
|
|
Sat, April 7, 2007 - 10:10 AM
i wish i had more time and space in my head to have these thoughts
but i really do think that all these thoughts here are actual things - reactions happening in earth organisms who have been able to even name themselves human and could even change that name; who take all these particular sorts of reactions and shape their (and other's) environments as a result; who have even prolonged their individual lives by applying the reactions that they have named "thoughts".
humans have an amazing interaction with the universe. i love how we gather information and synthesize it. i love that our consciousness allows the kind of progression it does. #7 - to me this is sorta true, except the way i see it is that humans are all in the same area (earth), experiencing some pretty similar things (human birth, life, death), in the same environment (earth spins around sun, moon around earth, hot mantle under crust, volcanos, oceans, precipitation, global warming, holes in the ozone, etc.), and generally speaking, if we were cooked pretty much the way that is archetypal for humans, we have the same sensory organs with which we gather the information. doing something with the gathered info is the whole point of having thoughts at all. thoughts are the synthesis of perceived information. as we apply each of these syntheses to our actions, we continue to perceive and add these perceptions to new syntheses. no 2 people are going to EVER be able to perceive and synthesize EXACTLY the same information, so while we are perceiving and synthesizing things from the same earth, and maybe if we are twins who do everything together, that process will be way similar, we will each still have our own unique experience. none the less, it will also be a similar experience as we are having them on the same earth, with the same basic materials. what makes it unique is the particular combination of experiences. so, is there 1 direct knowing per individual? sorta. i find the statement stiff. in my playful imagery, each instance of "knowing", (which itself is made up of many of tiny "knowings" and is part of a much larger "knowing" made up of smaller "knowings"), are like fuzzy balls of light where we might meet each other. no two people will meet each other at exactly the same "knowings", but everyone can meet someone at each "knowing" (even if they don't realize that they can and feel really isolated and lonely). AND even if its hard to find someone who has been to a particular "knowing", you can always try to break down the smaller "knowings" of that particular "knowing" and look for people who have shared that. its like we are ourselves, dancing fractals of experiences and we contribute to larger and smaller fractals of experiences - it spirals in and it spirals out. and i completely disagree with the thing about art history, but that's like 3 more paragraphs of writing at least! :) |
|
Sat, April 7, 2007 - 1:41 PM
> I think you are way beyong 'geek'...there must be a better word
Hottie covers it all. I value kindness, intelligence, and health (in that order) and someone that's composed of all of them is hot! > and i completely disagree with the thing about art history "Art history is completely arbitrary and is defined by collectors not artists." Interesting. I find the statement entirely tautological and inarguable, since it's art *history* that's being defined, and history is story-telling. |
|
Sat, April 7, 2007 - 5:46 PM
Has Ed done a lot of acid?
#4 just seems like a bit of sophistry: We use a word that means "one turning" so reality must match. (We use the word "God" so therefore one must exist?)
#8 just strikes me as a non sequitur. #7: I'd have to see a definition of terms to know what he means by direct knowing. #6 is basically Descartes "I think, therefore I am." #1 and #3 are thought-provoking (or stopping, in the Zen sense.) #2 is the unreliability of interpretation of internal sensations. I disagree with #5. Emergent properties abound in nature; you don't need magical thinking to account for them. That's about all I have to say on it, other than I want to go reread the D.T. Suzuki book on Zen that's been in my various bookshelves for at least 30 years. Interesting though. |
|
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 11:07 AM
"Has Ed done a lot of acid?"
Ed? I have no idea. Having once or twice stepped out into the bigger room, it's hard not to go back there... it's compelling, you know? |
|
Wed, April 11, 2007 - 11:09 AM
"Emergent properties abound in nature"
Nicely put, Kai. Emergent properties - like life force, or even Edrid's 'far out characteristic of the nature of universe that allows individual awareness to exist' - hold a great fascination for me. |