Astral Monk

Actually that is exactly how it works, since differentiation of 'things' is a cognitive act not something ontologically enforced upon us. The 'A' we focussed on just now is gone for good as soon as our focus shifts. And every new 'A' automatically creates its polarity '-A', which also vanishes. These are just cognitive structures loosely associted whose strength and coherence are developed by the sheer weight of repetition--structure built on structure built on structure...and all of it build on phenomenal sand. We dont receive reality 'as is' except when we first come into existence. But, one might say, surely there are things out there etc. Naive realism is naive because it fails to critcally examine the roots os sensation and perception and assumes that 'the world' we adult mature fully cognizant people speak of is 'what is really out there'. But adult mature fully cognizant people are desparately far from experiencing reality 'as is'. What naive realism suggests is we just accept common uncritcal belief which is already couched in such a deep and strongly entrenched narrative so as to make any other ideas appear shocking. Objectivism makes this mistake--it accepts A is A as ontological and thenceforth rejects the only true basis we have for critical reflection on deep reality--consciousness--the only primary and only constant in our experience. It makes an epistemological process into an immutable ontological law. Thats basically why it feels 'off' to some people--at its root its just another conceptual artifice trying to pass itself off as the reAlly real deal. Rand would reject the very idea of going beyond reason, but unfortunately that is the limitation of this mindset, one that cannot be overcome by any means other than total epistemological transformation, nay, obliteration. Logic has a beginning and ending. Reality does not. 8)

One last thought--its because objectivism cant comprehend quantum uncertainty and the fundamental chaos of the undiiferentiated manifold that it fails as a complete philosophical system. No big deal, those are hard to come to terms with. 8)

As for the legacy, at least when I was in school no one considered Rand a philosopher at all, let alone a significant player in the modern and contemporary philosophy narrative. Her appeal, it was said, was always with the young, eager, and inexperienced who cling to simplistic models and embrace them dogmatically. Surely not the intent of objectivism, but you cant say it isnt largely true, lol. Ever try to debate an objectivist? 20 pages later and A is still A lmao. 8)

Talking about objectivism through ethics is boring. For me rational self-interest is practically a no-brainer if not a fact of human existence. People act from motivations and intentions and these all arise internally because we are free and not puppets. There is always choice even at the point of a gun. For me Rand fails much earlier on at the metaphysical and hence epistemological levels. Quite frankly, A is A is not an ontological law, that is, it does not and cannot refer to any individual thing in reality other than reality in total, at which point there is no judgment or knowledge imparted. Meaning it doesnt reveal anything about reality--only how we choose to momentarily and provisionally divide reality into discrete elements or sections or units or whatever. A is A is the start of logic because it is the start of perception, the beginning of grasping and thus forceful differentiation of the continuous flux of experience. It is first and foremost an act. One might call it the first act of cognition, and it isnt even done in real time, lol. It can only occur where some kind of mechanism of memory exists. But its all grasping at straws. As the results of modern science clearly indicate, there is no end to differentiation because, again, it doestn reflect reality but a provisional perspective of it. Its all about context. When we speak of ethics and politics we speak of the human agent, the axiological agent. This is a choice. We adopt this level purposefully to engage in discourse. But in reality there are no such individuals--that is, at uncountable other provisional perspectives the human agent ceases to exist as a 'thing' or unit. Unfortunately all things slip away into nothingness (or the fulless of the phenomenal plenum) with enough scrutiny. So Rand as a provisional practicality (which is what all ethics amount to) is pretty solid because it reflects the actual nature of human being rather than some other systems that attempt to force humans into impossible conundrums via lofty ideals. I never read the novels and never will, but the other collected works discussing philosophy a la objectivism, including Peikoff's clear summary, are all accessible. Rand's 'critique' of Kant is laughable though, freshman level at best, and it shows, so she lost me there. But if you like objectivist ethics I recommend following up with objectivist aesthetics, bring some purpose into art discussions. So rational self interest YES, secrets of the universe deep understanding of reality, NO. imho 8)

Problem is that 'groups' arent real things--they are only a conceptual association of individuals. 8)

Easy. Altruists all die leaving the rest of us to procreate. Selected. 8)

Hi all, Is there a way to interpret a casting without making reference to the Yijing and its various commentaries? We pose a question, cast six lines, and get a hexagram. How does one go about line by line interpreting the answer? Are we looking at 6 dimensions of the problem? Or could we just separate into trigrams and analyse the relation between each element in their relative positions? Thoughts? 8)

Everything is possible, better ask 'what is actual?' Unf 'proof' seems problematic. 8)

How could it, since there is no such thing! What is Buddha? Dried dung. 8)

Who you 'really are' is neither a name nor a recent photo. 8)

http://www.taichinyc.net Tina Zhang and Frank Allen, get your Wu on! 8)

Truth is, nobody knows the 'truth', since its really just a strongly held belief based on an accepted narrative. All your spherical earfs are belong to US!! 8)

Well, a commentary is one persons read, immortalized. And each of these needs interpreting to apply. I'm wondering if there is a more direct way for the outback caster with no books around. 8)

Ohm Tare tu Tare tu re swaha! The many coloured Tara is also known as a form of the same Guan Yin deity-force. When it comes to devotional paths, you pretty much just take up one that best suits you. The point isnt to rely on a deity, but to use devotion to propel yourself to deeper levels of realization. Even so, some mantras have a primal vibration quality that taps into something deep. Om mani pad me hum!! 8)

Great collection!!! 8)

Oddly enough after doing his civic duty Jesus was put down by the state...

Lol place of whoreship eh. Well if it associated with an Abrahamic derived God this so-called 'reason' cant ever be validly passed off to the poor created schmucks who are, aftrall, just charactrs in the novel scripted--fully and completely scripted--by the divine author. Hence 'reason' aka 'responsibility' rests only with said author. Poirot is not responsible for how Christy writes him. He cant define himself. I'm reminded of the Sundays' song 'God Made Me'. 8)

Isn't it the case that the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' do not refer to types of energy (all energy is fundamentally of one 'type') but relative quantities of energy? Yin being low energy states, yang being higher states. IOW, there is no yin or yang energy, rather, these concepts just describe larger patterns in nature. Ergo there cant be a fusion of two different energies...or, such a 'fusion' describes some other internal state..? 8)

There are concerns that the banana is on the way to extinction. Would a world without bananas be worth living in?

Someone asked Chunyi Lin about this and he recommended some exercises...I'll have to check my notes... 8)

I think this all depends on whether one wants to get guidance on ones own path or worship some authority figure. I really don't think so. The process of realization ought to deal with many of these issues; if it hasn't, you prolly aren't ready to teach anything. I mean does greed, anger, and lust sound like attributes a truly elevated person would cultivate? I reckon that even if they display some special power there is a guru out there with the same power who isn't a jerk off. Moral character should be important and also a sign of achievement. 8)

Ah well, I never heard of that. It sure sounds like using astral travel to spark awareness. Weird way to go IMHO. I would agree that we can use dreams in spiritual practice. But for the average person exploring what is possible in their own mind scape, this is the least dangerous thing to do. I mean taking hallucinogens, hypnosis, deep psychotherapy all try to get a better awareness of the mind's processing and they might be dangerous for some minds. Taking a walk in the forest can be dangerous and it might be safer to go with a guide, but countless people go for a nature stroll and return no harm done. At least with lucid dreaming you are only in your own mind in a 'place' of your own making, and in the end all you can see is yourself. Not like consciously trying to crack another plane or mess with magic or external spirits and the like. 8)

Lucid dreaming is just increasing the vivacity of ones awareness during dreams. To be 'worried' about this is like being worried about ppl waking up everyday after a good nights sleep. IOW, nothing particularly special going on there, in fact this happens naturally for ppl without any 'training' whatsoever Astral travel, OTOH, is something else, that ppl must actively try to achieve and might lead to strange experiences as some have described. 8)

Branches from the same root, expressions of a common foundation. Internally the chi flows from the body out to the limbs. Wuji lies at the root. The martial applications are variations Of strategy, as others noted. Xingyi employs lots of linear power, bagua Zhang uses twisting spiral power, taiji chuan uses the void to entice force into emptyness and nullify power. Xingyi also uses animal forms in practice, although bagua does have some animal form applications. Basically, you will find similar themes in all three arts even while the central focus varies. Don't know much about the other two mentioned, but the truth is that there could be endless expressions arising from the common root of internal practice. There was a lot of cross-style cultivation in the early 1900s, which seems like kind of a golden age. Lots of great health benefits from these arts and their foundation practices. 8)