Astral Monk

Hi, can you talk a little about this? Do you have experience with this? thnx 8)

Well, consider that in the mirror universe the Vulcans were greatly feared. However, the Vulcan culture is nonsense if not impossible, whereas Klingons are in a sense more realistic. 8)

lol there is no "creative soil"...soil is not life. The seed itself forms the plant first by drawing in water then much later by drawing from the soil. If there werent lifeforms already abundant in soil it would be as inert as traditionally conceived--as a balance of sand, silt, clay. Soil is at best a canvas upon which life is painted, but other than being a medium it bears no relation to the paint of the images it forms. 8)

Another point for the matrix as information is that we never experience anything directly. That is, we only grasp what appears on the sheen of our body. The body is the end of reality, its surface maps out to complete canvas of experience. And, if we can suspend cognition and bracket all perception to attain the presentation of pure sensation, we still do not find 'things' out there in 'a world', but rather an undifferentiated phenomenal manifold that only reveals itself--a fluid wash of sensation. That undifferentiated manifold is the truth of reality and is the most direct access we have. It is necessarily non-cognitive but as it contains all possibilities for the development of perception (of particulars) we might look at it as a manifold of pure information--like a huge book that hasnt been opened yet. Cognition is the process of reading the book, but the whole thing is a chose-your-own-adventure because your starting point determines how the whole narrative will unfold. Each individual cognitive being reads a peculiar set of passages unique to themselves. Between beings there is some overlap--the outline, table of contents, some chapter headings, etc., but no single being can read the whole book at one time. They can only experience the pure presence of the unopened book. This is why A=A is not an ontological principle (pertaing to what 'really is'), but merely an epistemological one (pertaining to the structure of our knowledge through perception). Or, put another way, A=A can only be applied to the unopened book itself, because that undifferentiated manifold is the sum total of reality and the only true 'thing' relative to consciousness. Being is being because there is nothing else outside of it (thanks, Parmenides). Every other 'thing' is a construct, a product of a cognitive process. And all of these are ultimately empty. "Listen Shariputra, form is emptyness, emptyness is form, form does not differ from emptyness, emptyness does not differ from form. The same is true with feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness." --Avalokita, Heart Sutra This is an unavoidable fact. When we look into a 'thing', any 'thing' you like, we soon find there is nothing substantial in it. What we have is not a thing whose objective reality we directly sense, but a moment in an ongoing constructive process of perception valid only for a limited scope and application and stage of knowing. There are no true atoms in nature, hence A=A is not valid ontologically as pertaining to the essence of 'things'. It can only reveal the functional structure of our knowledge, which itself is nothing more than a narrative we chose to selectively assert from our limited reading of the great book of reality. Information is outside of timespace because it is just a pattern of a possible reading. When we read reality we bring to light layers upon layers of information, all connected by our random starting point--eg, what page the book opens to when we flip the cover. Are we just brains in vats or brains in space? Even those things are empty constructs!! Oh, Shariputra!! 8)

Do we exist in a field of information? Yes. But 'information' here is as vague as 'energy' and could be synonomous. Despite what some claim there is no way to know. Descartes' evil genius cannot be disproven. Just saying 'the world is objective' is not enough to overcome our inherent subjectivity. The western 'problem of other minds' cannot be answered--it can only be worked around through a bunch of suppositions that ultimately prop up the metaphysical view you want to assert. Bootstrapping. The world of pure immanent sensation is something very different from what we experience through the lense of a mind. To uncover it requires a monumental reduction to pure being--easy to philosophise but hard to achieve. Its the same point where logic fails and requires you to go beyond--into the beyond. And it must necessarily be so, since logic is a product of a process that begins with the first spark of the mind forming impressions and coallescing these into represenations. As beings with minds we cant help but perceive a 'world' of our own making--a construct. And that construct is radically individualized. To 'see' reality 'as it is' is NOT perception at all and is not possible when a mind is active. I'm going to say that yes, we do exist in a matrix because the rules governing cognition require that to be the case. 8)

It would be interesting to explore this fully, but in its own thread. Maybe I'll start a topic when I have a moment. 8)

If nothing is really 'free' then there is no virtue? If there are degrees of freedom then there are degress of virtue? What part of the natural world is 'free'? Everything is constrained. By physical laws, by the interconnection to all other things in existence, by time and space. Is virtue pure emptyness? Unless emptyness is constrained by fullness, in which case it too is conditioned and not really 'free'. Hmmm... 8)

As a side, I like this chain of reasoning, but I would argue that there is no such thing as 'stolen land' because land cannot be owned, only occupied. So both the 'theft' and 'original ownership' are imaginary. 8)

As others have suggested, the answer depends on what moral standard you adopt. There is no absolute answer. But two things you might consider: 1) The nature of the business--in Buddhism we are encouraged to have right employment. Generally this means our jobs ought to reflect our value goals. In the case of Buddhism it means supporting the 8-Fold path which itself supports our efforts at liberation (from suffering). It may take a complex multilevel rational assessment of an occupation and its consequences to figure this out, but if it matters to us thats exactly what we need to do. Consider Islamic values, for instance--anything that ultimately runs contrary to Islam is forbidden. You ought not find a Muslim bartender or bacon salesman, for instance. 2) The concept of ownership--what does it imply, how does it work, what are its foundations? All ownership is a form of appropriation. It is an assertion of external power and control backed by threat (real or implied) of force (physical, social, or economic) to defend the claim against others. In this sense, owning a business is fundamentally different than being engaged in an occupation. The former is a fragile social contract that at a minimum requires that everyone leave everyone else's claims alone lest chaos and violence erupt and destabilize social order; the latter is a fulfillment of a functional role where the act of doing the work, the process of working, is the goal and value achieved. -- And there are many other considerations and levels to look at. If owning isnt a problem for you, or if it feels like a moral obligation to assert your economic power, then you might want to consider your relationship to clients and employees. What are your professional standards? What public profile do you want to establish and maintain? Is your business supporting the global economy or is it geared towards growing local economies? Does it further the destruction of nature or promote its cultivation? All of these could be questions of moral value that could make or break a job choice for a person. I once quit a job working for a bank because I discovered that they funded a business that manufactured cluster bombs--bombs that kill and main human beings. Although my 'job' and the bank's investment were not directly related, since everything I did ultimately affected the bank's bottom line, and that line created capitol for investments, and those investments went to bomb makers, I was indirectly supporting the killing and maiming of human beings. Now this is against my values as a peaceful humanist and I could feel the karmic weight of it. Once you know what the chain is linked to, you cant avoid the connection. It was, for me, a moral choice to leave that industry entirely, since you just cant know the full range of investments that you could be indirectly supporting. Asking 'is it moral (or immoral)?' is only a basic first step in a more complete value analysis. It leads to a lot more questions and answers that you need to unpack and arrange to discover value relationships. This exercise in rational analysis is important for each person to do, if the consequences of their actions matter to them. IOW, you need to figure out your answer for your specific situation, because only that process will be relevant to you. 8)

Basically, in trying to figure out what virtue means, we have the ovjectivist identifying it with a process as opposed to the idea that it is a state of affairs or the culmination of several processes. We end up debating the usage of the word. Which better fits concentional usage and understanding? Its important to note that in both cases virtue is not the same as value. Virtue might BE valued but is not itself a value. Which means that virtue is just a way of describing some state of affairs. That means that it is not a tool for moral guidance, and in fact has nothing to do with morals. Being actively engaged in a proceess or passively immersed in one says nothing about the nature of that process or the outcomes it produces. That requires another level of judgment. Interesting consequence and maybe counterintuitive if we are used to associating virtue with goodness. Its goodness is only relative depending on what standard we assume. However, unlike value, if we see virtue as a process it might be easier to identify because there will be a fact of whether the process is there or not, whereas with value it is always a choice that shifts depending on ones frame of reference. 8)

The objectivist view is that virtue is a product of human agency. While what has been called 'intrinsicist' sees virtue as a factual state of affairs. In the former virtue is the jihad of conative agents trying to manifest their various ends. Virtue is just another word to symbolize this struggle. Taken by itself, understanding virtue as 'the action of attainment', this definition covers all purposeful action or all means that produce the specific end. Generally, virtue is a disposition of conative agents to strive to satisfy their goals. Virtue here is like courage--a general or global attitude people adopt. Virtue is a relationship a person has with their goals. Note that this covers a broad spectrum and doesnt and cant differentiate based on values. An assassin has as much virtue as a philanthropist. The form is the same--a disposition of the conative agent towards the attainment of some (series of) ends. What we consider 'moral virtue' is a small subset arbitrarily constrained based on a series of valuations. IOW, we say that only some types of ends shall be considered valid for conative agents to strive to attain (the 'good'). So we say that a killer fufilling their goal of assassinating is not virtuous, even though logically the form is identical to that of the philanthropist feeding people at the soup kitchen. If we take this view then only conative agents can have virtue because only they can have dispositions relating to the goals. The view I was describing above suggests that virtue is more of a description of fitness that can be objectively assessed. It goes beyond goal and purpose (though it includes these) and speaks to the fufillment of a thing's nature. The former view sees virtue as an aspect or character; the latter, as an aspect of essence. I think the latter is more what de refers to--not a struggle to attain something but an effortless manifestation of the way. Which is why virtue in that sense might not accord with what we generically think of as 'good' and might even seem detached or morally ambivalent. 8)

The idea was to identify virtue with functionality and thus to be connected to a more objective perspective related to the nature of things and actions. It isnt about defining 'some action' as virtuous, but rather saying that the concept of virtue describes a state (or increasing degrees) of harmony with the essential nature of a thing. The more out of alignment with that nature, the less virtue. A being at one with the dao will be virtuous in all respects. And this will not necessarily be connected to various moral valuations, though it may sometimes fulfill them. 8)

In western culture virtue is usually thought of as a manifestation or expression of morality. A virtuous person is one who eschews evil and avoids temptation. But this ties the idea to value, which is necessarily relative. We say virtue aims at 'good' but we mean some person or groups' idea of moral good. If we look at virtue as more of a 'fitness' or 'fitingness' of a thing or act relative to its nature ( or the aim of the act) we might see a more objective measure. Theres still a relative aspect, but where virtue is considered as a sign of the fitness of a thing, our ability to evaluate it will be more closely linked to general facts about the thing, rather than a series of prior valuations as with morality. The virtue of a hammer, for instance, is a sign of how perfectly it fulfills its purpose to pound stuff. This will necessarily include its properties relative to users--design, weight, usability. The relationship is in how a things nature is expressed. A hammer isnt evil because it hits someone on the head--heads or nails the hitting is what hammers do, in fact is the only reason they exist. With people the issue is more complex, since we dont have a generic purpose to fulfill. But we might take a view that a person has virtue to the degree they express the dao. If dao is an underlying state, de is the form of the total actions that support it. We might say that the more immersed in the way a being is the greater its virtue. In this sense virtue isnt tied to anyone's idea of 'good' but is more an observation of the fitness and functionality of things or acts being the things or acts that they are. 8)

Just wanted to express my gratitude to TDB for providing years of inspiration and information. What a wonderful resource you all have been! As a westerner I might never have encountered qigong or internal arts on my own, but so many sparks have flown from this here fire pit. There is a notion in the paramita sutras of Buddhism that if you are fortunate to possess copies (eg. of the Diamond sutra or Heart sutra etc) of certain teachings, it is a boon and blessing for the present and and indication that you are reaping wholesome seeds that have been sown in countless lives. Similar, they say that it is good destiny for a person to find a neidan teacher, that it is the result of some virtue. From my perspective, I went to a book store and bought a sutra, but that act may be connected to a potentially unlimited chain of events, all building on one another in a positive direction. Even if I squander this life, the fact that I have, held, and kept a sutra means a future me in a future life will also reap the benefit and build on the momentum. This is an amazing concept! In a way, being drawn to TDB is part of my essence, my destinty, perhaps conditioned by countless lives and innumerable wholesome seeds and some small virtues. In giving thanks to all of you, I am grateful to be myself and have even a small window to peer into the mysteries. May all your efforts produce abundant good fruits! 8)

Shall we say that the value of virtue is greater relative to the fullfilment of the individual's nature than to the attainment of social ends? Is virtue merely effortless integrity of a thing fully expressing its nature? 8)

Clinging to 'culture' is a sign of sickness. Defending 'culture' is a practice in absurdity. Real beneficial practices are beneficial for all human beings in virtue of them being human. What does 'culture' have to do with it? A good example cones from the New Testament, when the disciples came to Jesus whining about some guy who was going around healing the sick and casting out devils, a la Jesus. He said 'he who is not against us is with us'. Meaning that once you get on the right track the 'origin' of that track becomes meaningless or unimportant--the results are what matter not laying claim to something like intellectual property. If it works it works universally and the origin, while a historical curiousity, cannot lay claim to ownership. Theres no doubt that ppl benefit from modern yoga. So much the better if it is a modern invention we can relate to that goes beyond cultural limitations. But, we need to understand this, and not simply blend traditions into a mishmash; that is, making spurious connections only to enhance the public profile and not to deeply inform the practice by placing it within a historical context. 8)

Waiting for Gödel. 8)

Does the moon project its own unique waves or is it just a conduit for the sun's reflection? 8)

Like the bagua in my icon. The pre-heaven bagua. I choose that because of the representation of the perfect order of forces before the movement of creation, so an ideal balance. The three undivided lines represent 'heaven', but only because we say so, not because lines together in a group divided or undivided bear any direct and necessary relationship to whatever it is that we group under the concept of 'heaven'. The lines stand as a sign for us to reflect on or even construct a concept. But if no one ever said they represented 8 elements, no one would ever take them to represent 8 elements. 8)

Nothing has objective meaning. That's the nature of meaning. A finger is a finger, middle or not. What is 'means' is nothing, what it can mean is everything. A smile can be both welcoming and dangerous. A frown sad and pensive. There is no end to the attribution of meaning through symbolism. It is because all 'things' are empty of 'meaning' that we can endlessly attribute meanings to them. 8)

As a thought...I dont have an argument against Jung, but I wouldnt use him as the basis of an argument either. I can acknowledge that shapes can and do contain 'power' but that this is purely geometric in terms of the directing of lines of force. Hence a triangle can be very strong, angles can be unsettling, etc. The question is is a human baby automatically afraid of a snake? Or do they have to have this fear conditioned into them? Babies don't automatically create language. This is also conditioning. We, as a race, live in a symbol rich environment, in which many symbols have common origins and have been preserved or kicked about constantly wherever language and writing exist. But aside from geometry, there is no instrinsic meaning in any of them. That's what makes them symbols--they are figures we choose to represent something else. 8)

This is just another example of why religion is nonsense and why people buoyed by it are stupid--putting more value on an ultimately empty symbol than human beings. Again, no symbol has objective meaning. They cannot, its impossible, due to the nature of symbols themselves--which is an arbirtrary or non-necessary association of a figure with a concept, which is itself only an approximate grasp of a compressed series of impressions. 8)

Well in Islam its said a person with tatoo will receive a grievious punishment in the hereafter and certainly ne'r taste paradise. Wow a bit of ink on your skin equals cause for eternal damnation. Another reason religion is bonkers. To each their own. I like a tatoo that has meaning, that tells a story, that reflects something of personal value to the bearer. I dont care for whole body art or sleeves etc but thats my pref just based on appearances. Symbols dont have objective meaning. Theyre only contextual and transient, so you cant have a wring symbol because its value is only what you put into it. 8)

More likely easy access to abundant pyschiatric medications. 'Loner, kept to himself, mental illness, marginalization' etc. Guns dont help, but most gun-owning people dont commit mass murder. Prevalence of guns is not the cause and were there no guns these issues would manifest in some other equally disturbing way. 8)

Right. There is no ultimate distinction between our bodies and the body of the universe. We are a nexus of a continuous energy exchange. Damaging 'our' body and the rest of the universe is principally the same. We cant move a single inch without destroying life. We are constantly creating and destroying. 'Damage' is a matter of scale. Scale is a matter of perspective. Perspective is a matter of value. Value is a matter of choice. Dust to dust afterall. How can dust harm dust? 8)