doc benway

Have you ever worked in a scientific environment? I have my whole life and I've never seen more criticism. Everything a scientist does is subjected to rigorous and uncompromising criticism on a regular basis to maintain integrity. It is the norm, not the exception. I've seen it in physics, chemistry, math, medicine (especially medicine) and so on. I'm not denying the flaws you are pointing out in scientists but I don't think it's due to a lack of criticism. Maybe they are subjected to so much criticism and have learned how to deal with it so well that many think they are beyond reproach. PS Truly religious people, IME, are very intelligent and not so wacky. It's the folks who don't think for themselves and don't really look critically at reality who allow themselves to be hypnotized en masse by popular mythology that your first sentence applies to. IMO, those folks are not at all religious - just observant (or brainwashed). True religion is the uncompromising internal and personal search to understand the truth of our being - everything else is politics (paraphrased from Osho). It takes an intelligent and driven person to do that work. Although we could certainly call them stupid and wacky for wasting time trying to figure out the ineffable!

I think it's important to segregate the two. Both are important in my life but if we introduce empiric experiences and conclusions derived from inner work, we will compromise the integrity of the scientific method. They really are apples and oranges. I don't think it's necessary to value one over the other. Hopefully there will be more interaction and overlap of the two spheres as both fields continue to advance but not at the expense of the integrity of either. Each are too valuable for that, IMO. We do see more and more scientists participating in disciplines like meditation and so forth and I think we will see progressively more interaction of the two groups in the future - prickles and goo as Watts would say.

Oh my goodness gracious - I nearly choked on my tongue. Of all the people to make this accusation. You cannot possibly tell me that you don't see the irony in this. A creationist (or ID subscriber - whatever label you prefer) is telling scientists that they have tunnel vision and discard evidence out of hand, ignoring it or explaining it away with frivolous, superficial arguments and excuses? I'm not saying it doesn't happen (it absolutely does) but you and your "scientists" and apologists and creationists and Intelligent Designers are the Grandmasters of this! You guys try to discard and ignore an entire theory that has been subjected to the rigors of the scientific method for generations, let alone evidence. Come on now! You've got to be joking! And I do apologize if I'm being hurtful but I just can't help myself.

Hmm, sorry I didn't answer that the first time. It's a tough question. I think that the evolutionary theory has little direct impact per se on my life. That is, whether the theory existed or not, I'm not sure how different my life would be currently. On the other hand, if I were to spend a bit of time looking into the history of scientific development, I imagine that I could find examples were Darwin and subsequent scientists involved in studying evolution have influence or inspired other work that has had profound effects on current scientific methods and technologies. I'm sorry I can't offer more specifics than that but I genuinely can't think of anything terribly specific and don't have the time to spend looking into it right now. How about you?

How would we ever know if "you" or "I" were no longer present as witness? Who would be there to know? I respect the direction your heading and I've spent many hours with Vedantic inquiry. I think that as long as we are alive we are aware. Or let me say, where there is life there is awareness. There are senses, there is thought, there is presence or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. I certainly agree that the "I" behind it all is illusory. It's just another one of the thoughts that stakes a claim as the thinker and conspires with the senses and process of thought to create the illusion of a "me." Nevertheless, absent the "me" there remains thought and sight and smell and touch and so on and so there is awareness. Allowing "ourselves" to disappear into that awareness is no different than the process you are describing of allowing ourselves to disappear into Taiji or anything else. And disappearing into awareness encompasses all possible experience - movement, non-movement, thought, non-thought, sight, sound, and so on. In fact, this is an exercise I've used with my Taiji class from time to time. Having everyone simply stand and be and talk them through a guided meditation of surrendering to awareness. I find it to be the easiest way to disappear. So I sort of think we're saying the same thing. Awareness does not have to be the action of anyone but it remains nonetheless, until we die.

Awareness - to be aware of everything that is going on in you and around you. You do not have to do anything. You do not have to seek anything. And yet you are open to everything.

He's human. He was an alcoholic, a womanizer, and a great thinker and teacher. Now that he's dead we'll never know who he might have responded to your challenges (or my own). I would bet that he'd fair pretty well one on one if we had the opportunity to sit down with him. I agree that he's not perfect - I'm certainly not a Watt-ist. I think he was extremely well versed in each and borrowed elements of each to synthesize his own metaphysics (as well as drawing an awful lot form Hinduism). This

Hi Gold, I would like to use your post as a jumping off point for what I feel are important considerations and a chance to pontificate (you know how I like that!) Why do you/we feel forced to drop morality? Why let anyone force us to do something that goes against our grain? Who is doing the forcing? Why should we give them that power over us? We always have the ability to choose to give up or not give up that power and when we do we are like little monkeys on a leash, dancing at our masters command. They insult us or hurt us and we re-act based on their values rather than act according to our values. I know that there are many examples of when it is very tough not to do so but does it really have to be that way? It's paradoxical - when we refuse to give up that power (ie act in a "moral" manner when others are treating us in an "immoral" manner) it appears on the surface that we are weak and the other is strong. But the truth is that learning to not give up that power over us creates enormous strength. The strength of the martyr, the strength of a Gandhi or a Mandela, the strength potentially to change the world. I know I'm aggrandizing a bit, but it really is terribly liberating. So in a chess game, I give my opponent a second chance and he takes advantage of it. He refuses me similar consideration and I lose the game. What have I lost? A game of chess. What have I gained? The ability to return love for hate. That, my friend, is the power to save the world. What is the power to win without giving my opponent the same consideration they showed me? That is what is destroying us as you point out. Can we be moral in the face of immorality? Can we return love for hate? I think this is what can rescue society from the breakdown you mention. That is the message of Buddhism and Christianity and other traditions (maybe not the institutions but the scripture and intent). It's certainly not easy and it's not new but then again, neither is the perception that society is corrupt and on the brink of collapse. It's particularly tough when I feel like I'm the only one trying and everyone is exploiting my good intentions. Not sure I can do it consistently but lately I've been trying and it seems to work. Is it worth the effort? Can it be successful in the long run? On a large scale? I don't know but I think it's worthy of consideration. The ideal (ie Buddhist and Christian doctrines of metta and love) always gives way to human nature but is it possible for human nature to change? The only way to know is to try, here and now, one step at a time.

Great post Otis

I guess it depends on what your looking for out of life. If you're looking to "win" or "get over" or are focused on your needs, desires, happiness, and so on... then the "cut-throat" method will work best for you. If you are looking to help others to achieve their goals, desires, and be happy, then the "moral" approach will be more effective. It's also important to recognize that helping others is also a selfish undertaking. When I make myself happy, I am giving myself the pleasure of pleasing myself. When I help others, I am giving myself the pleasure of helping others. Both are ultimately done to satisfy my own need in some way. Nevertheless, the "moral" approach works better when helping the other guy. And when (if) we have an insight into the connection underlying all of us, helping you really is helping me, and helping me is also helping me because we're both me. You're as much a "me" as I am. I just am limited to feeling my own skin and emotions but yours are just as real. Ultimately, I feel that the "moral" approach is more pleasing to me for the most part, more of the time, currently, than the "cut-throat" approach. But I would be lying if I said that I follow one path exclusively.

Great post Otis. I experienced something similar in my Taijiquan practice. For a long time the postures are determined by visual image, mirror, description, teacher's corrections, and so on. Eventually the body learns to feel when its correct and this ultimately becomes "more correct" than attempting to mimic someone else or follow directions. Now its enough to feel the body and conform to the principles outlined in the classics (for the most part) and at that point the Taiji is yours. And at this point the feeling is not necessarily limited to "the body." That is, the part that's bounded by skin. The wave/particle metaphor you mention brings Alan Watts to mind again. I never get tired of listening to him.

I've read through some of the book. Well put together IMO. I've had some chronic back pain for years and over the past few months I've been much tighter in the low back, hips, and pelvis than usual. I've also been pretty severely traumatized in the past and continue to be exposed to and work through some of the traumatic stimuli. In just a few sessions, I feel a definite improvement in the low back and hip/pelvic stiffness. I haven't had much psycho/emotional release other than a transient but fairly intense burst of emotion the first time I did it. I think the preparatory exercises are important. They seem designed to fatigue the leg muscles a bit which I think probably creates the physiologic environment conducive to trembling. The trembling is fascinating. Some is high velocity and short excursion like quivering, some much longer and slower and rhythmic. You can feel the different muscle groups being recruited in a relatively random pattern. Definitely something I plan to work with for a while.

A very important question. When we speak of history we need to distinguish events we personally experienced from those we have not. If we have not experienced the event, we are simply relying on someone else's interpretation and documentation of whatever events they witnessed, often 3rd, 4th,.... hand. Our own experience is 1. extremely limited 2. intimately related to our cultural biases, expectations, emotional attachment, vantage point and so on, and 3. wholly limited to our accuracy of documentation and/or memory. To some folks the Bible is history, to others Laozi is a historical figure. As per my example earlier - which history of the destruction of the twin towers is the truth? And that only happened 10 years ago! We can certainly say that something happened but it starts to get fuzzy as we try to pin down the details.

My pleasure - glad you liked it. It really opened my eyes to some interesting ideas about time. He was extremely insightful and a brilliant teacher. A new movie is currently being produced about his life. Check here - I can also heartily recommend a CD set of talks from late in his life called "Out of Your Mind"

Word

Theories can't exist without evidence. A theory defines a relationship between multiple pieces of evidence. Certainly, specific bits of evidence can occasionally be extremely important in therms of clarifying or establishing theory. On the other hand, the theory is a consistent, reproducible, and predictive construct that produces results. The data alone is not as valuable if you don't see the relationships that allow inferences and predictions. So as much as its always dangerous to make judgements, yes - I would say that the theory is more valuable than the raw data but also, completely dependent on the data.

Great points to think about. History is a funny thing. Not only is it written by the victors but it is rewritten by those in power at any given time. Furthermore, Marbles' point about interpretation is critical but it is because of this that history really isn't written in stone. Just about any event in time is interpreted differently by everyone involved, even eyewitnesses (think - Rashomon). The Palestinians and Jews would have a different story for just about any occurence in the West Bank since 1967. So what is history? It's mostly our documentation of our interpretation of events. And our perspectives change in time, so history, in fact, does change as our interpretation changes. We can be very concrete and say that the twin towers either collapsed or did not collapse but beyond the very basics, how much would everyone agree upon? I really enjoyed the Alan Watts on Time videos:

I think it's because the "being" is exactly what is in the way. The "being" can do nothing to attain it. Perhaps it is just an accident. Like the Buddhists say, it could take many, many lifetimes, or an instant.

Perhaps I should have used the word - invite, rather than challenge. I think I've connected to those who share my feelings and I know better than to try and convince anyone who doesn't. I do appreciate your comments, Sloppy, but I think we've beat this horse enough. You guys are all just a bunch of assholes. I'll try to play nice. Just kidding mods, couldn't resist a little levity. I'm out!

Again- the point I am making is that I choose not to insult. I challenge others to consider doing the same. I am very forgiving with respect to insults. I forgive you entirely for the insulting things you've said about me in this discussion. I have no problem with the moderators using their judgement. As I've said, I've never logged a single complaint about anyone save one. I'm talking about making a choice with the heart. I support whatever level of moderation our mod team deems appropriate. Strict, not strict, I really don't care. I care about my own choices and raise the opportunity for all. And I really do appreciate the fact that you value my opinion. I disagree - insults are nearly always distortions. An insult is a personal attack. In general, it is more accurate to attack a statement, idea, or behavior. On a forum, as was posted earlier, we can only address words on the screen. We don't know the people well enough to address their person. So most insults are either generalizations or are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate. Using insults in your online communication is more likely to cause you to offer distortions than avoiding them. Again we must agree to disagree. Being polite is a characteristic of maturity. Yielding to impulse is a characteristic of immaturity. Both are valid choices. The polite, mature interaction is more likely to lead to collaboration and compromise - the hallmarks of civil interaction. Impulsive behavior is more likely to lead to conflict in adults. We are not children and do not behave like children in our adult interactions (well, most of us anyway). I agree completely that open and honest communication, even to the point of being blunt and frank, is best and it is my preferred approach. It is more likely to be successful and well received when offered without personal insult. I think you want to be able to freely express yourself as you see fit. I think that you are not concerned enough with considering the feelings of others. Perhaps you equate that with intellectual honesty and integrity. I think that you currently feel intellectual honesty is more important than compassion and love. I understand that position all too well. I also honor and value intellectual honesty and integrity. There was a very long time in my life when I was consumed with the intellectual and analytical side of me and totally lost touch with the emotional side. This resulted in an imbalance that has had a negative impact on my relationships with my family members (parents, wife, kids...). I've worked diligently over the past few years to rediscover my emotional being and I've come to value and honor love, compassion, and the heart as much as intellect and analysis. I intend to implement both in my life and at this point in time I feel like the heart is taking a slight priority over the mind. That's my choice right here and right now and the background behind my comments regarding insult. This approach has helped to resore balance in my own life and has helped me to deal much better with my professional life as well. Thanks for listening.

Very nice to watch you move Otis! Bravo!

Spending time with little children if the opportunity presents itself...

Interesting stuff. Those interested in magic may also enjoy "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" and some of Alejandro Jodorowsky's work on healing with Tarot. Great stuff.

Thanks - I've yet to read Campbell. I'll check it out. Is that a good place to start in his oeuvre?

How about politicians? Sad, isn't it?