sean

cloud_recluse, thanks for the recommendation, I will check him out. freeform. I appreciate the compliment on my writing. I have been thinking of writing a book. Seems I have a lot to say lately. I'm not confident enough yet in how I would tie my ideas together into a coherent presentation that would be worth anything, but it's definitely in the back of my mind. Ok, so, back to it. Sweeping generalizations to follow. It's not that I think that the postmodern perspective is wrong. I just think it's only relatively right. It's a perception of reality on a very limited bandwidth. Which is kind of ironic considering how radically free thinking postmodernism prides itself to be. It's like postmodernism has discovered this really great, shiny koan. And the koan has potential to lead to true wisdom if approached contemplatively. But more often than not there ends up just being a fixation on all the pretty sparkles. So, in practice, postmodern thinking ends up leading to, IME, a nearly robotic "that is just your perspective" deconstructionism. And with the implicit assumption that this is the only valid way of processing information and communicating. I believe there is the transcendent potential for a *pop* to their koan into an experience of satori, of absolute truth, that postmodernists are just missing the tools to access. What's interesting to me is that I perceive even this position I am articulating as just another bandwidth of perception, ultimately relative, or I might prefer to say, inherently empty. I think there is a full spectrum of truth between these levels of perception. To be honest though, and hopefully not to sound arrogant, I do have a sense that my view transcends and includes yours. Just my sense. And the reason I think this is possible is because I believe that our subjective experience of reality contains as much information to support the assumption that there is a directionality to the universe as it does to support circularity. It's linearity that makes progress, maturation and growth possible on the relative plane. Otherwise manifestation is a futile, circular mistake that we can only hope one day to escape from. And of course we both know the dangers of over insistence on linearity. The real fun comes in with a nondual vision the includes the truth of both. A spiral is not a bad form to express this idea. So I want to pursue this a little and ask you a bunch of questions ... all sincerely and out of curiosity, for you as a person and a well read philosopher, not in any kind of attempt to get into a "proof debate" or anything ... just Tao Bum friend to Tao Bum friend ... Only answer as many or as few as you care to or have time for. What do you think of this "other side" of relativism I am proposing ... this making room for an absolute? How do you apply "absolute relativity" to your own thinking? What is your motivation for, what in my limited view, seems to be a strong strong preference for perceiving phenomenon from the relative rather than anything that leaves room for absolute? Is it that you think this is more correct than another view that it is not more correct? What is the epistemology for your decision making heuristic on what is more correct than something else? For me, concluding that, under nonextraordinary circumstances, feeding a homeless man is a more ethical act than smothering a child to death presupposes the existence of absolutes that, while they may not exist purely in relative form, exist perhaps as Platonic ideas from which I derive a moral gradient. Finally, I am curious how "True" Will fits into your belief. Crowley's conception of True Will was, from my understanding, that if everyone was living their True Will the world would exist in a dynamic harmony free from evil. Evil, in his ethics, is only found when there is restriction around the flow of Thou's will. Do what Thou wilt. Not, do what I, the relative form, wills. Do what Thou, the absolute, is naturally trying to express through incarnation. (It's in this sense that Crowley is like this really strange, almost Catholic theologian). Sorry, I think I am overloading you with questions. I just find this an interesting discussion and something I'm working through right now. Sean

There is no way to objectively prove that there is an objective world outside of our subjective experience. But there is also no way to objectively prove that there is not. I think the postmodernists have turned the former into dogma. There is an almost absolute presupposition behind postmodern thought that there is conclusively nothing real out there, and so everything is just up for interpretation. IMO, this is not what the wisdom traditions are teaching. In fact, I think spiritual wisdom is saying the opposite. They are saying that there most certaintly is an absolute truth. There actually is an elephant. Absolutely nothing conclusive can be said about it, including that nothing conclusive can be said about it. And in the sense that it's at least partially untrue that nothing can be said about it, the mystics often tell us it is perfectly safe to think of this absolute truth as absolute Love, Freedom, Emptiness ... all positive, non-nihilist conceptions. I don't think these are just lullabies for the working class. I have yet to find a mystic who tells us that it's just as right to think of God or The Tao as vile and infinitely unwholesome. Furthermore, the mystics tells us that this Absolute can be empirically experienced and even subjectively proven. And the more deeply we embrace That, the more our lives are brought into alignment with reality, and the more we begin to incarnate an order of Truth that is not merely a logical analysis of how to most efficiently acheive a specific amoral outcome. We become intuitive expressions of Divinity that far transcend situational ethics. Really, this isn't any different than positing the existence of a True Will that we align ourselves with. Crowley, Leary, Wilson and other first-wave non-aristotelian Western thinkers made a big deal out of emphasizing that the morality of "True Will" will often not meet preconventional standards. This isn't big news though. The Tantrics have been saying the same thing for over a thousand years. Postconventional ethics are so absolutely relative that room is actually left for the absolute to infuse every cell of it's structure. That they cannot be codified on tablets in the same way as preconventional, fundamentalist ethics simply does not mean that morality doesn't exist. This is my view. Respectfully, Sean

Scott, I also apologize for my part in our communication breakdown. The way you have explained the function of CST, the role of the RMAX forum, and how personal belief fits into this makes perfect sense to me now. I think you are doing a wonderful job with what must feel like a terrifically difficult juggling act sometimes. Thanks, Sean

Hmmm, I do think it was mostly bad timing and misunderstanding actually. Neimad, I didn't put it together that you are "shadow" over there on RMAX. Damn, you got the CST lingo down, man. Ok, how about some more tedious clarification. CST is a phenomenally cool system. It does what it advertises. I can see the reasoning behind trying to keep a system free of loaded, culturally specific terms. I am also not a big fan of trying to explain things in terms of chi or prana either. I rarely ever refer to these concepts in discussion or personal practice. I think it's much more effective to describe experience in detail without resorting unnecessarily to the terminology of traditions we are not immersed in. So instead of "dude, I felt my chi when I was meditating", an almost meaningless statement, one could say "A cold chill went up and down my spine" or "I felt a warm tingly in my throat." I think the reason I went into this "debate" with the level of idealism that I did, is due to my excitement as of late with Ken Wilber's integral vision. He has created a framework that IMO, helps many many disciplines and spiritual traditions communicate with each other with very little confusion as to where the other is coming from. He is linking up Kabbalah teachers, philosophers, business coaches, Buddhists, psychologists, Christians, Sufis, dancers, physical culturists, doctors and on and on in this incredible way where each gets to keep their own tradition, but they can enter into really fruitful dialogue on where their teachings converge, what their teachings might lack, etc. And so the Christian priest walks away with an understanding of what the "Christian system" really excels at, and what it may want to include and what it may want to "outsource". The philosopher can see more clearly when a student may benefit from a hatha Yoga class, and the Yoga instructor can see more clearly when a student may need some philosophical distinctions. It's with an excitement over this framework in mind that I saw the potential not for Scott to change his system at all, but to humbly dialogue about it's boundaries, areas that it doesn't want to move into, how much it is willing to tolerate discussion of subjective experience that may not be best approached from CST alone, etc. There is a pretty cool talk on Integral Naked I was actually going to send Scott a link to a few months ago, and it probably would have led to a more civil, private discussion about this through email. There are two parts to the talk: Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 1. Strength, Vitality, Transcendence. Getting FIT in All Three Bodies. Part 2. The Transformative Power of Strength Training Unfortunately it requires a subscription to Integral Naked, which I think is $10 a month. IMO it's worth $100 a month as there is so much great content and it's updated regularly. (This is not an affiliate link btw, I don't make any money if you signup). Anyway, so I'm not a big fan of bodybuilding but in the talk Ken Wilber talks with Shawn Phillips (the brother of Bill Phillips, author of Body-for-Life) on how body practices fit into an integral practice. The ideal of an Integral practice is that it should include body (physical), mind (framework), spirit (spiritual), and shadow (psychological). All esoterics aside, from a perspective of human health and happiness alone, I agree. CST excels at the physical. Clearly. And CST outsources the nutrition component to Kathleen DesMaisons work. And obviously when you get in a car accident you go to the hospital, not to your local CST coach. I'm not being trite, just highlighting boundaries with obvious examples. CST includes a mental framework that is probably more detailed and profound than most systems of exercise. All while remaining secular which is quite a feat. Yet CST alone is not a complete life philosophy. Some great questions: Where are the borders of the CST framework? What can and can't it inform in one's life experience? How does it fit with and/or contradict other philosophies? When and where should a student look outside of CST for a wider framework? When is this just "mental masturbation" to avoid practice? CST avoids directly addressing the spiritual dimension. Which is totally fine. Scott is saying this part is up to you. Wonderful. It's a deeply personal dimension, and somewhat of a can of worms. We see the depth to which spiritual discussions are carried out on this forum alone. It would be kind of wierd if all of sudden there were drawn out threads on the nature of sunyata on RMAX. Obviously I think these discussions are very important. A form of Jnana Yoga (which also includes framework building and shadow work). It's also important to recognize that spiritual practice and mental framework building are not the same thing, although they merge. A lot of what we do on the forums is more the latter, and also shadow work to an extent. CST works with the shadow. More deeply than most American systems of exercise. One of the things that struck me about CST from the start was the encouragement to keep a journal and write down any thoughts, images and sensations that arise when you are performing various exercises. Powerful stuff. Yet obviously there are borders here as well. Do we send a paranoid schizophrenic to our local CST coach? Maybe after they have met with a mental health professional and given the necessary prescription medication, but not before. Likewise there are other softer priorities. So really, this is what I was getting at. There were some other unfortunate elements to that thread that made things more complicated. Like that it may have appeared I was supporting Bodri's position, which I don't really. I think CST can open your "chi channels". And I also think this statement borders on meaninglessness. Ok, but enough chat. This is a dead horse I think. Back to my practice. Cheers, Sean

Well said, I think this is a crucial point that alot of anti-magick people don't get. Yes, there is a thrust toward transcendence that is absolutely vital to include on the path. And there is also an equally vital thrust toward immersion and destiny fulfullment. Winn talks about this a lot and has an interesting cosmology that is feeling into this relatively new understanding of nonduality. It's also touched upon in the bodhisattva vow where one vows to put off complete transcendence (absolute freedom) to complete the work of incarnation (love). I think some people mistakenly take a linear, apocalyptic view of the this work of "saving all sentient beings" when really it's an infinite task occuring in the timeless space of emptiness. Our hands get dirty because the Tantric path asks us not to lull ourselves to sleep in the comforting womb of cessation, but to become all that we are ... to perpetually birth the unmanifest in every moment. Magick is just a word to describe the process of focusing your life force to achieve a specific purpose. Like anything there is whole line of maturation to this. When we are kids we want to pray for the best toys at Christmas, a primitive attempt at magick for our own narrow view of self at the time. As one evolves, IMO, they move closer to a postconventional approach to magick, closer to what I think Ian is talking about, where one taps into the life-force as a way of energizing our own highest potential which we then bring into the world. Sean

Mushtaq, I'm not really sure where to begin responding to your post. I don't find much in either you or Scott's writing that inspires much argument, much less thread locking. There are some things I disagree with, sure, but not many I find so important I feel any compulsion to clarify them at length. Maybe better left at "agree to disagree". But let's see if I can go through post and find something interesting enough for me to comment on. As a linguist I would not have expected this opinion from you. Poetry is frequently analyzed from a scientific mode. This is actually exactly why I brought up Ken Wilber's four quadrant model in my discussion with Scott. I think you may get something out of studying it as well. It's true, poetry is mostly an upper left quadrant experience, seen as words flowing from the subject experience of I and then appreciated by an audience similarly. But poetry can be appreciated by consciousness from any of the other quadrants. In the upper right quadrant, poetry is more clearly distinguished from other forms of writing, it's categorized into different genres, common themes in grammatical structure, tone and rhythm are clarified, etc.. In the lower left one might analyze the social impact of different forms of poetry throughout history, etc, etc. As you say, you will probably write a poem from the upper left. Yet I think many great poets have probably spent at least some time perceiving poetry in all the modes, to more broadly inform their discipline. Agreed to an extent, although with the important distinction above that one can approach any phenemonon from any quadrant. I don't think one need be all things at all times. Some quadrants are better suited for having a particular type of experience, as you pointed out. And I don't even think there is anything wrong with someone who has a strong preferred mode of operation but devotes the majority of their efforts working with the so-called "wrong" objects. For example, a person passionate about poetry but with a scientific bent so she spends her life refining a study of poetry into sublime analytical distinctions that working poets and historians can use to glean useful distinctions from the art. I disagree. In fact one of the reasons I enjoy Scott's work is his repeated use of spirals in his frameworks which are IMO a very elegant postpostmodern synthesis of linear and circular thought. I simply don't need a lesson on this. I am familiar with the authentic depth of the enneagram but not that interested as I have plenty of other things I'd prefer studying. I also do think there is value to the modern, enneagram of personality model and have noticed fourth way enneagram "purists" don't like to admit this possibility. That is wonderful that you have a relationship like this with Scott. But the fact is, many people do not and have perceived Scott and his system as being rather quick to pile punches on different viewpoints. I've actually gotten so many emails from people on Scott's forum that witnessed our "debate" I haven't even had time to respond to them all. People expressing that they've seen this kind of "Sonnonism" many times before (I wasn't even aware of this term) and that they also didn't see the reasoning for Scott basically flaming me. Responding to these emails has put me in an awkward situation because I've always been a very outspoken supporter of Scott and his work, but now I've been "publicly" disrespected and given an "apology" that amounted to "I'm sorry you think I was wrong, but here's why I wasn't". No I'm not, but frankly you have a degree of abrasiveness that doesn't make me want to hang out with you anytime soon, man. No worries though. It's not a "ghost in the machine" model. It's a Tantric cosmology with a nondual vision of samsara and nirvana, form and emptiness, movement and stillness, immersion and transcendence, paganism and escapism, body and soul, love and freedom, and on and on. Evolutionary, incarnational, nonduality. My definition of meditation is not much different than Scott's actually. It's just the process of bringing mindfulness to what is. There are probably thousands of forms of meditation described as specific practices in various traditions and I think they all embody some form of mindfulness. Although sometimes the practices are described somewhat paradoxically as "letting go of the mind", this is really meant to mean staying present with reality and not allowing discursive thought processes to limit the opening of awareness. As for stillness, first I'd like to say that stillness and movement are relative terms. Like many so called dichotomies, there is also a nonduality to them which both contains and is neither and both of them (etc). Any two things can be thought of as being contained within something larger. Something that is the space between them that makes it possible to make a distinction between "this and that". It's in this sense that, ultimately we are, as the new agers are fond of saying, "all one". It's also in this sense that the concept that a thing is moving is only in relation to our relative distinctions that that thing is separate, which it is not in any absolute sense. In a similar way, stillness is relative to the sense that something is actually moving. Things are moving only in relation to a perception that other things, often the space containing the movement, is moving less. As the mind's job is to perpetually make distinctions, the "manifest world" appears to be in constant motion. Yet we can still speak in context and say, relatively, that there is more physical movement in Jazz dancing than in lying down and remaining still. So stillness meditation is mindfulness of what is while in a relatively relaxed, relatively still posture. Preferably one that can be kept still and relaxed for the duration of your mindfulness practice. Stillness meditation can be practiced successfully seated in a regular, comfortable chair, sitting up in bed with your legs in front of you, in any of the various "Eastern" meditative asanas ... really any comfortable still posture. And again, my belief, and it's a belief I hold similarly to a strong aesthetic preference, without dogma but a deep preference for beauty to ugliness, is that any complete system of human evolution should encourage one to explore the full range of mindfulness through stillness to movement and back. I think consistently neglecting one side of the equation makes for monks who can't dance and calisthenics instructors without depth. Ok, looks like I did have a few comments. Sean

But at what point does the whole thing turn inside out? Because you must be aware that you think that "reality seems relative to me today" is more true than "everything is relative" because of your conviction that the statement "everything is relative" is absolutely true. I'm not trying to suggest that your conception is not the result of careful study and thought. I think you are sincere and are pushing postmodern thought to it's logical extremes. In my personal experience though, the bubble popped and I found myself in what I can only describe as postpostmodern thinking that includes the possibility of other absolutes besides just "everything is relative". Sean

Affenbrot, interesting about that nature of the question bringing in the reptilian brain and disrupting it's potential. I think if we are in a meditative state when we contemplate it though, it can help us discern and clarify our values. Then maybe when we are in tough situations in life, hopefully not ever a bad as this, we can respond with less primitiveness because we have spent this time bringing higher orders of our self to bear on how we would like to behave. It seems like a lot of us are having trouble not trying to save everyone, which speaks highly of our idealism and creativity and also avoids the point of the question IMO. A variation that may help would be that you are in a solid steel room with 9 people. A voice comes on over an intercom and says you must choose 3 people to die or you will all be killed. Sean

Wow. Jumping into this one late here. Good discussion on a heated topic. Some random thoughts. First, I just posted the following in another thread and think it's relevant to this one as well: "I think postmodernism actually leads to something more when it is radical enough to turn it's own beliefs on itself. Everything is relative including that everything is relative. It's not PC, but some things are actually universally more true than other things. They are not simple, fundamentalist or even capable of being systematized necessarily. But you could say that the universe has a thrust to it that keeps cutting deep, reoccurring patterns into everything that unfolds. And this universal directionality has a wisdom that is not just a pragmatic preference. In my mind it's more like patterns of inevitability intrinsic in the cosmic seed manifestation is born from." Perception of this higher order of right and wrong is something all honest seekers are working toward, wether they call it True Will, Right View, dissolving ignorance, seeing things more clearly. I think carrying around wisdom questions like the lifeboat ethics dilemna for a few years is a practice that could help this line of development. Lawrence Kohlberg did some interesting work on stages of moral development. He asked a few thousand people to answer how they would respond to a dilemna that went something like this. Your wife is sick and going to die. There is a cure in a pharmacy in town that is extremely expensive and you cannot afford it. Do you steal the cure to save your wife? He got three major responses to the question, yes, no and yes. The first yes was from people who were basically selfish. Of course I'm going to steal the cure, it's my wife and I love her and want her to live and I don't know this pharmacist and could care less about him when it comes to my wife living. The second response, the no, was that he should not steal the medicine because it is wrong to do so. It's against the law, against the social order, unfair to the pharmacist, etc. The third response, was yes because life is fundamentally more valuable than medicine. This is a simplification of his work and his stages btw, but the point is, he conducted follow up studies over many years and found that people who answered the first yes tended to move to no and then to the final yes over time, whereas people who answered no, tended to move to the final yes and neither the second no or the final yes ever regressed backward. His theory was that, much like the developmental stages that have been clearly outlined in children, human morality moves through stages of increasing sophistication. And IMO, neither the ten commandments or "it's all relative" are the most advanced stage. Also, before Lozen graciously points this out, Kohlberg's studies were all done with men, but a woman named Carol Gilligan did follow up research and found that women's moral develpment also moves through stages of selfish, care, universal care although woman tend not to socially interact with value hierarchies the way men do. Something like that, right Lozen? Sean

Yet through consciousness, we did figure out that both are describing the same thing. We know this. We are not in the dark about this. And some things are not describing the same thing very accurately. If someone had a theory that these are not waves or particles or waveicles, they are literally miniature gremlins, piggybacking each other, we would know that were not accurate. And their theory's inaccuracy is not just because it is an efficient belief for getting what they want. It really is less accurate. This is probably another big discussion we should have. Is everything relative? I think postmodernism actually leads to something more when it is radical enough to turn it's own beliefs on itself. Everything is relative including that everything is relative. It's not PC, but some things are actually universally more true than other things. They are not simple, fundamentalist or even capable of being systematized necessarily. But you could say that the universe has a thrust to it that keeps cutting deep, reoccurring patterns into everything that unfolds. And this universal directionality has a wisdom that is not just a pragmatic preference. In my mind it's more like patterns of inevitability intrinsic in the cosmic seed manifestation is born from. Sean

IMO this wasn't much of a debate, mostly an unfortunate communication breakdown. I think Scott really misunderstood where I was coming from in my first post and kind of came out of the gate swinging. I had just sort of winged off that first post without even really thinking ... I would have worded my point more carefuly if I'd known this was such a sensitive subject for him, or maybe not posted at all. To me, this argument was like, if you worked with a lot of different ethnicities every day in your job, and you were really cool with all of them, you guys all partied and respected each other and were pretty good friends. And one day a bunch of you are in the cafeteria and some Irish guys are joking around, yelling at each other, and you turn to this Irish girl next to you and go "hahahah! you ever notice how these Irish guys here are always just a little louder and crazier than the rest?" And all of a sudden she is standing up yelling at you, drawing a crowd, breaking down the history of the Irish struggle, suggesting you are racist, citing philosophy to prove that Irish people are not actually louder. And you are just like, lady, chill out! I was just making an observation and casually sharing it with you. I'm not plotting a coup on Ireland. I'm your friend and co-worker, sitting here with a bagel asking you very calmly to stop spitting in my face. Toward the end of the thread I kind of got into things debate style a bit, mostly because he kept insinuating bigotry. Also from a logical debate context, his arguments were not sound IMO. It's probably best that he did lock the thread because I didn't agree with the logic in his last post either and I would have continued going back and forth. Sean

No, Leo, I concur, that is an awesome awesome book and a really great way to get hooked on Yoga and move from an absolute beginner to an intermediate level in the 28 days as advertised.

That is a rather interesting and curiously specific way of framing what you are looking for cloud recluse. There are many many somatic therapies these days. If you are into doing intellectual research before deciding to more deeply explore a particular approach, a good place to start is the book Bone, Breath, & Gesture: Practices of Embodiment. It has articles and interviews with the most important superstars of somatic awareness. Although Alexander Lowen is not in there and I also like him a lot. And you can use that link as a starting point to explore many other great somatic and authentic movement books connected with it on Amazon. Another good one I enjoyed is Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery. Sean

I can agree with this to an extent. I mentioned personality because I think it has a great deal to do with which modes of observation a person prefers to apply. And preferences are fine. It's just there often comes a point in one's immersion in one mode, where one begins to find apparently irresolvable conflicts with other modes of perception. For example, immersing oneself in an objectifying, scientific worldview tends to make one highly skeptical of claims that cannot be proved by the tools of science. This has proved very useful for many things, not the least of which is discriminating legitimate theories from quackery. And yet there is an enormous, cross cultural body of knowledge derived through subjective, interior exploration and insight that typically gets thrown out when this scientific position is insisted upon as the only valid criteria for discerning truth. And it frequently is by people deeply entrenched in a scientific mode. (Along these lines you may want to check out Jean Gebser's IMO brilliant work on structures in human consciousness, particularly his theories on the effects of widespread, cultural over reliance on so called "objective" thinking.) So one of my passions is really for finding "rosetta stones" that help at the very least lubricate communication between these modes I believe are all trying to describe the same reality in different, and each very very valuable ways. And yet we all have a hierarchy. RMAX has a very explicit hierarchy. Health, Mobility, Function, Attributes, Physique. And as has been clarified for me recently, RMAX is a specialized system of physiological health and so much as asking how this system interfaces with what one may call a spiritual, or nonmaterial approach is obscene, prejudicial flame bait. I'm sorry, I only have the patience to explain this one more time. It's very simple. If your highest value in life is to have a lot of money, then you are at least momentarily failing to acheive your highest value if you run out of money and go into bad debt. If your highest value in life is to have physiologial health, then when/if you become 98 years old, and your skin is sliding off your decaying body, and your bones are brittle as twigs, and you barely have the energy to put your false teeth in and crawl to the toilet without help, and you have probably come down with any number of diseases that are almost guaranteed to strike someone as they advance into extremes of old age, then, by your own standard of health-as-highest-value, you are losing your values. You are failing to uphold your highest value. Your health is being taken from you. Your body is dying out from under you. And you are identified with not only it, but it's health as the most important thing attainable. Conversely, if your highest value transcends and includes your body and your body's health, yet doesn't depend on your body functioning in any particular way or even living, then aging and death may be seen from this higher identification as part of a natural process that you are witness to. As part of God's plan for your soul, or as phenemonon arising within an inherently empty space of pure awareness that you truly are. Regarding Taoist immortality, as far as I am aware, historically only small sects of Taoists ever believed or attempted physiological immortality. It's a metaphor for a spiritual process of identifying one's consciousness more and more with that which never changes, never dies. In so doing "you" in your truest sense become immortal because you recongize the truth that you are not merely your body, you are something that includes the body and is also much more than it. Exactly what I was just referring to. I don't recall referring to "sitting meditation" specifically in any of the RMAX discussions. I believe I referred to "stillness meditation" which can be done in any comfortable position in which the body will not unnecessarily distract you. Some style of sitting is a good one though. The reason I think it's so important, besides the voluminous body of meticulous scientific research showing it's mental, emotional and physical health benefits across the board (which have not been scientifically correlative with exercise studies btw), and besides the fact that it's a form of practice found in almost every single culture and held by nearly every wisdom tradition to be one of the most crucial forms of practice, is simply my own, undeniable empirical experience. Sean

Pietro, I knew you'd dig this question. Incredibly intriguing response you've given. What a fascinating reframe with throwing a bodhisattva before a rapist, because the boddhisatva can easily reincarnate more seamlessly whereas the rapist would go into an afterlife without a chance to release his terrible karma. This suggests to me that you have a strong enough belief in an afterlife and reincarnation cosmology to base a life or death decision on it, would you agree? Mushtaq, I also feel like you are coming across fairly acerbically toward Lozen. It could be that tone of voice is not being conveyed properly. But I think coming onto this forum and within three posts basically interrogating another long time member of this community is not the way to win friends and influence people. Let's concentrate more on our own responses to the question, and less to nitpicking people we don't know yet. Especially in such a sensitive topic as I've already mentioned. Max and Cameron, I wholeheartedly agree that you can not arrive at a definitive intellectual answer from this question. The idea isn't to create some codified ethics that you can write down and refer to if ever you are in a situation like this. A real situation like this, first off, would not be so contrived and second off would call upon all of your heart wisdom and intuition to arrive at an answer that was true for you in that moment only. This is just a thought experiment to help you tease out and contemplate how you already structure your values. You already have a network of values and this is a practice to shine a light on them IMO. Sean

FYI - I've also had positive breakthroughs with EFT. Affenbrot, I've been meaning to jump in on this thread. I wanted to ask you a question about your agoraphobia. Are you afraid of bumping into other people when you leave the house, or is it literally a fear of leaving the safety of your home? For instance, if you were in a beautiful home in, let's say, a friendly, secluded forest, and you had a private door in the back that opened to a curious path that wound a bit through the woods for a mile or so to a small clearing where there were hot springs that you could sit in and soak and relax, with the sun gently peaking through the leaves above. Now, if you knew that you could take this walk and you knew for certain that there would not be a single sentient creature for many miles, would you be more or less scared to take this walk? I ask because I've had something similar to agoraphobia in the past, and then came to make an important distinction that it was more like social anxiety that would flare up to extremes. If I knew I would not bump into anyone, my fears were significantly less. Sean

Yes, this question sucks. That much is clear. It forces us out of the safety of our causal fantasies that we are beings of unconditional love, free of judgement and asks us to dig into our imperfect souls and find our dirty, personal, selfishly stained responses to a terrible, horribly contrived situation. Try it. Heh, but maybe I am doing the equivalent of finding some leftovers in the fridge, tasting them and realizing they are nasty and then going around to everyone saying, OMG this is so gross you need to taste this. Sean

I have the video Yoda which is really good, and all the stretching superstars seem to pick that book as their favorite so it comes highly recommended. Also, Stretching and Flexibility - How to Stretch is a huge, free article packed with good info. Gigi, are you up to full splits of any kind? If so I am bathing in jealousy. My split training has taken a back seat because the ligament on the inside of my right knee keeps getting sore and I'm afraid I'm going to hurt myself. Sean

Welcome cloud recluse, you sound like an interesting fellow. Glad to have you here. I love bodyweight exercises. I love handstands, headstands, bridges, squats, yoga scorpions, bridges ... My jiu-jitsu academy has been getting me into Ginastica Natural which is also really cool stuff based on animal forms. Sean

$19.95. I take Paypal. Mushtaq, sure, post whatever thoughts you may have on Bodri, language of the subtle body, meditation, Scott and I's "debate", etc. Sean

Oh yes, and this is a sensitive topic. Let's try to create a container of the utmost mutual respect in this thread. I'd like it if we tried extra hard to speak to each other reverently on this one. This isn't a debate. I don't want to put people on trial for their responses. We are just exploring a complicated moral space here. Feeling out our own and each other's ethical textures. Respectfully inquiring deeper with compassion. Trusting that there is an inherent wisdom to each of our responses based on where each of us our at in our lives, and the past that's led us here. Stuff like that. Sean

Heh, Lozen, I'm not sensitive about how you answer this. I think the only thing you could say that would upset me would be that, without hesitation you would throw me off the boat first thing, no questions asked. I think it's fun to try to be creative and clever with this thought experiment, and imagine how we can save all 10 people, or how we can think outside the box and change the rules. It's a contrived, imaginary situation that would probably never happen in reality. The point is that it's actually a meditation practice to get you to go inside, put yourself in this situation and actually feel through how you would make this difficult decision if this is how you were to have to. I answered the questions from a very survival oriented mindset at first true, but it's not the only space you can go into or the only way to answer, obviously. Lozen, what about another layer of complexity. What if there is a brilliant political activist on board that is making profound, utopian changes to an entire nation's political structure, helping finally relieve racism, opression, and injustice in, let's say, an area that's been war torn for hundred of years. Would you throw over a brain damaged child for a women like this? Would you throw over a virulently anti-semitic, pregnant wife of a KKK leader for a man like this? Sean

I don't think it's sick. I think it's a very good situation to contemplate because it forces you to discern the actual, messy, imperfect details of your present ethical hierarchy which aids your ability to morally problem solve in the real world. It's one thing to have this perfectly ideal system of ethics, never hurt a worm, love all beings, make no judgements, we are all children of God jumping rope on a fluffy cloud. But I think this ethical situation is actually a metaphor for the difficulty present in actually applying ethics in our everyday life. In other words, what charity do you give money to? Which ones don't you? What line of work do you seek? Why? Is this primarily for your own personal fulfillment, for others? Which others? Why? In what ways do you sacrifice some of your values for other values? How do you organize your values to make a difficult decision? Etc, etc. Try to answer the question the way it was framed affenbrot. I think it will be a good thought experiment for you, precisely because you hate it so much. Sean

Welcome Mushtaq. It's great to see you here. I've enjoyed your posts on RMAX for a number of years now. Feel free to jump in on any discussion any time. Sean

I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion here, if no one minds. The essence of what I was trying to say is that there is a reality to what happens when you engage in spiritual practices, such as sitting in stillness, working with the subtle body, or praying to a higher power. It's a reality that is beyong the metaphors people often find themselves needing to use to explain it. It's a reality as reproducible as teaching someone how to make a cake. And its a reality that I don't see addressed or included in CST. Which is fine. Obviously. A system can not be all things. I don't expect my BJJ academy to start teaching me how to open my third eye anytime soon. Yet when a system's proponents begin making bold, sweeping, aggressive claims that it is all you need that I raise my hand. Because I don't agree. It's funny because this is actually the same problem I have with Bodri, and I clocked in plenty of hours arguing the other side of the coin last year. That stillness meditation is not a religion, it's not all you need. So pretty soon I'll have no friends. Ironically I strongly strongly share Scott's ideals in finding a language to discuss phenomenon that is as free of unnecessary cultural baggage as possible. I think one of the layers of complexity added to us in completely decontextualizing spiritual experience is that much of it is so contextual. The mystic path is a journey through the subjective to find the Self. And maybe I am just too young on the path to see that argument like the one I had with Scott is why elder seekers tend to become more reserved and silent. The deepest seekers in my experience mostly keep to themselves and rarely seek to market, or proselytize. Because what is there to really market here? "Hey there party people! I got this great new product. It's called open your fucking eyes and realize that your thoughts and sensations are clouds in the sky, everything that is born suffers and dies, there are millions of people writhing in pain on this planet while you glibly eat your cereal and watch television, and you will continue doing whatever you possibly can to avoid the truth of what I am saying, but when you are ready to begin opening your eyes, give me a call and I'll teach you how to sit still for an hour while you watch in horror the contents of your egoic-mind you've never once stepped back from". Still, I feel like there is some hope in putting your neck out there and acting as a bridge between different worlds. My ideal is not even that everyone completely agree and share the same path. Eck. I think that would lead to some enormous, grey, lifeless religion of the masses. I think my deeper passion is merely to find a common language that people can use to more closely understand and speak respectively with each other about their spiritual experiences, regardless of their chosen emphasis. And within this context have debate that is healthy and generative, and not an egoic clash of entrenched positions. Then we can all hold hands and skip gayly into the sunset. Sean