julianlaboy

I found this forum looking for Taoist Alchemy information, as well as Mo Pai. I`m 33, and I`m a physical therapist. I`m from Argentina, so I`m a little far from all the popular masters.

 

I read a lot of books, and now I think it`s time to practice.

 

It`s nice to be here!

 

Regards to all the TB

Saludos, amigo!

What kind of practice are you interested in?

Hello, again!

"rather than not thinking about what we do not want, we focus on thinking about what we do want", what about non-conscious thoughts? In my opinion, "want" is more complicated than that. We would have to bring awareness and mindfulness, and their different degrees and differences between people, to the conversation. I'm only telling this to show again that I support individual differences in the whole consensus argument.

"to be congruent you would think that the absolute meaning of a word stems from its use... and is set each time it is used.... and if the listener use, corresponds to the speakers use, then the listener understands what the speaker stated otherwise the listener understands whatever story the listener chooses to construct": I disagree. There is no absolute meaning to a word, other than what we coordinate the word (its content) to be. Again, there are co-ordinations (other word for consensus) of meanings between us. We are still in a world full of language and different construction of words, but things change and have a history and circumstances that again bring change (sometimes). I don't see how that would turn me an absolutist. Things are not set each time they are used because we have some preconceptions about what "things" are. Everything probably just is, but we do see "things" or "objects" specifically as humans. We define them and we find uses to them based on their definitions (which may vary from person to person, from time to time, etc.) and vice-versa. Because of our need and use of language (which is relative to many things) I think is really difficult, if not impossible, to go beyond our condition of humans living in a language world and explain, think, talk, etc., of what those "things" or "objects" really are. That's the point here, we think, explain, talk, etc., in language (again, which is relative to many things) and there may not be an exit to that (other than the whole "enlightened" thing that I'm sad to say have not experienced).

I be from Mexico, how about yourself? BTW I realize many think that what they think is the true story and rarely bothering to validate that what they think actually corresponds with what happens to be... et-thoughts is made up of my initials 'et' and a word 'thoughts' meaning the thoughts I have ... :-) I realize that many may think of 'extra terrestrial' when they see the initials and make up all sort of other stories... this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach). This sort of thing can happen all the time... with all sort of 'words' . I think I mentioned earlier that the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use... not from some consensus reached by those who use it... take an encrypted message where certain words have certain meanings... someone who knows the code can get to the intended message while someone who does not know the code understands something else... one either decrypts the actual intended message or something else depending on the decryption schemata used. In certain domains the encryption even contains validating schemes to ensure that the message was not altered and was complete... personally I had to develop validating mechanisms to ensure that what I perceive corresponds to whats actually there because of the highly likelihood for me to see something that isn't there... dyslexia is a sort of 'blindness' that can lead to develop higher sensitivity in other domains like sounds and touch... paradoxically the more you believe to get it right the more you expose yourself to get it wrong and the more you wonder about it being right the more you will likely get it right... The example "do not think of an apple" sought to expose the fact that it leads to thinking of an apple and a struggle not to think about it rather than just focusing on what one desires to accomplish. Strictly specking the claim "I didn't think X" is actually a lie, a false statement. I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite.

I am from Puerto Rico! Tough things happening on Mexico's politics. I have a friend posting a lot of pictures of people burning voting ballots !!

Ok, let's go. Hehe... "this is actually just an example of how individuals 'unilaterally' and arbitrarily determine stuff for themselves (rather than follow a consensus approach)", and I agree completely. Individuality and creativity are not ignored in the consensus approach. You used the example of an apple, and I imagine a red or green kind of circle (debatable, hehe) that tastes tart (love the green ones), that have thicker skin that other fruits (hate the things on red ones), etc. There is a consensus for the ideal/statistical apple (that's how we understand each other). But my apple had a stick and a leaf, and some may imagine the thing with tree and all or with whatever changes, including color, taste, etc.

"the absolute meaning of a word stems from it use...": I agree, but I thinks that that "absolute" stems from the consensus (so it's really a relative). Its use is what a (what we call) human uses it for. Some eat apples, others drink it, others ignore it, etc. I didn't know what ROTFLOL meant. I learned, thanks to you, what its utility is for and, by reaching a consensus (by agreeing with the definition and your use- and other's), I accept and will use it in a similar way that you did.

You mentioned dyslexia. People with brain lesions (for example, frontal lobe lesions which "impairs the use of reason" if heavily "damaged") may think differently and have problems with our consensus of how things are. Because of their difficulty with maintaining our consensus (of words, meanings, intentions, all kinds of content) some people say that they are "out of reality". We see change in them because they no longer find useful our ways of seeing things. However, they still live in a world of language, so what changes in them is how they prefer to use it. That's why we "see" personality changes, emotional and rational changes, among others.

Brains are maps that come and go, and no specific area relates absolutely to a function like "reason", for example. That's why you may have a lesion in the frontal lobe (strongly correlated to the use of reason), but still "use reason". It's just a different way of using it, but still in the world of consensus. How we interpret it is just something else.

I don't know if I am making sense anymore. I have to sleep and go to work. hehe

Oh! And of course, "I hold we need to be careful with what we think so that we cultivate what we desire to cultivate rather than the opposite": I agree.

(Edit) I feel like I'm rambling through different ideas... Sorry!

" Sorry, Spanish is my primary language ..."

FWIIW - for what it is worth ... ROTFLOL - rolling on the floor laughing out loud...

Spanish is my primary language too! Why be sorry about it :-)?

 

If you can, look for the conduit metaphor pdf (http://www.biolinguagem.com/biolinguagem_antropologia/reddy_1979_conduit_metaphor.pdf)

 

In a way we each live in singular separate world that we each create... the only way to experience stuff is for us to recreate the artifact in our world though we sometimes change and forget to take into account what we have done... the flaws in the artifact observed by us may be the result of what we have done... The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it. That is to comment on what I have stated, you first have to accurately get what I have stated otherwise your comments would focus on something else... For me in a conversation there exists the intended meaning, the perceived meaning and the shared meaning... when these are identical copies of each other its a bit irrelevant which one we take... but when they are different the relevant meaning depends on the focus taken... sometimes its irrelevant what was understood, for what be relevant is understanding what was intended. Sometimes its the other way around, what was understood is what be relevant regardless of the original intent... then sometimes neither the intended nor the perceived meaning matter much for the focus centers on the shared experience.

 

BTW - do not think of an apple still gets you to think about some apple and of schemas of how not to do what you be doing... its much easier to just think of an elephant and focus on doing what you do by just doing the action ... as someone once told me "If you did not think something how did you manage to write that you did not think about it...

 

I hold to know what you mean and just want to expose something quite common... that we may better focus and understand what be going on...

ROTFLOL !!?? Hahaha I said sorry out of courtesy because you had to give me some of your time for such a silly question, hehe.

Where are you from? I thought et-thoughts was because of ET, the movie.

"The idea that what we have made results from a consensus disregards the fact that to accurately evaluate something we have to first accurate recreating it". I still hold that we first "create" out of what we intend/perceive/mean/understand we have. I don't believe we are re-creating anything. That still can manage to argue in favor of our language (not just words) consensus and the whole intend/perceive/meaning comment. Again, I probably am speaking as an "unenlightened". However, we are born in a world of language and that is why we can think of something and still manage to write that I didn't think about it. We are still focusing and understanding what is going on, but in a relative manner. I think of something when I hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we call an apple. But I cannot go beyond our senses (mind-body/emotions-reason) and give it a truly objective and absolute nature/conceptualization. If what we call a pion (subatomic particle) could have eyes, the whole apple-is-something thing probably wouldn't make sense to it. The pion would only see a chaotic kind of pattern (or so we think).

I failed to mention numbers themselves in my post above. Well, not so much "numbers" alone but the concepts and principles underlying mathematics, said concepts & principles including numbers...

 

Numbers, like life, simply are. There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers. Like the number 42, for instance -- 42 just is. (It is indicative of a particular position in a ordered sequence regardless of the language or base used to express it.)

 

Both life and numbers do have purposes...

I agree that "There is no meaning of life and there is no meaning of numbers". Because of that I don't agree that life and numbers have purposes. At least I am not in a position as a human being to know that.

Numbers solve the problems that have been created by the numbers.

 

Agreed.

The whole universe is said to be built upon the progression of numbers. This wisdom of numbers was called arithmesophia, and its contemplation could bring a man to understand how the universe came into existence. By looking at the relationships between numbers, we can get a glimpse into the internal machinery of the world of matter, and even glimpse beyond matter, beyond forms. The odd numbers represent the male aspect, and 1 represents the Father. 2 the female aspect, duality. This is why the Father is seen to impregnate existence into the womb of the divine mother. The plane of matter is always seen to be feminine in the scriptures. Every number has a meaning. If you examine closely, you may be able to see which gods of the old pantheon's relate to the numbers 1-9. The gods are aspects of the universe, given personalities based on how the forces they represent act in nature.

 

In other words, the relationships between numbers are there not by chance, but out of necessity. Numbers have relationships because this universe came into existence by natural principles and relationships- and numbers are bound by these natural principles because numbers exist within this universe. Numbers are the cogs and wheels that allow this divine machine to run. By relationships I mean for example why 9+9=18, and 1+8=9. 18+9 again is 27 and once again 2+7=9. Do you see this amazing property of the number 9? This is a repeating pattern. So then we must ask what it means for two numbers to be multiplied, and to be added, etc. This exists for a reason. And there is occult meaning in all of these relationships.

 

A divine science indeed, that can shed light on nature's laws. The wise philosophers of the past did not investigate arithmetic for no small reason, nor was Pythagoras only a mathematician as we learn in our schools as children.

As much as I would like it, I don't think those kind of patterns "are there" out of necessity, as you say. I do think is a chance thing. But I respect and value your opinion and, as I said before, I may be wrong. As et-thoughts said, it may be a topic for the enlightened to know.

julianlaboy,

 

The name stems from my initials ... glad you liked it...

 

Let me ask you this "do you find absurd the notion that two separate beings (mind-body-spirit) can actually hold within themselves identical-understandings"?

That is, what you understand and what I understand be one and the same? or to use another metaphor the map and the territory be one and the same?

 

I noticed you said "...the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure..." ultimately we may just have to accept the fact that we just can't be sure and that its rather irrelevant to actually be sure... we may just have to believe and move on... BTW prepare yourself... for the fun of it and hopefully to show you that it is possible to explain something by just referencing something I am going to explain and define something without making reference to something else... here goes, three in a row: "what be" be "what be", the truth be the truth, a be a... notice that those that know 'what be', the truth, a, lets call them the enlightened, do understand, while the unenlightened find the 'explaining' absurd :-) UNTIL they get it and become enlightened :-)... its a bit esoteric, those that already know the stuff are the only ones that can know the stuff and for those who do not know it already, noting will get them to know the stuff until they just know it...

 

How do you reconcile the following two notions:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

 

It seems to me that if one considers stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of" THEN it follows that the 'correct perception' involves having a model that does correctly recreate what be out there within itself.

 

BTW the fact we may claim we understand each other may be true or false depending on 'what be' the truth of the matter... 'what be' and 'what we claim to be' may be in agreement or disagreement depending on what be and what we claim to be ... Once I read that the truth is accepted or rejected not the result of some consensus ( it was framed/worded a bit better though the essence is there)... in any event glad we agree that 'beliefs tints what one could perceive'... you seem to believe that this happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds)... where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether.

 

FWIIW - the absolute meaning of a word is relative to its use ... and each time it is used it may change or not

 

Why worry about making things confusing when we can choose better options... confident that eventually the experience will be enlightening...

I agree also with you when you speak of "the enlightened". That is why I said that I simply can't say anything about what goes beyond language.

As for the reconciliation of the following:

- considering stuff "out there" or "exists independetly of"

- the notion that there are no "correct" or "normal" perceptions.

I would say that we are creating worlds (no translating anything, which also is a response to the first post by Everything). We create a world (or worlds) made of consensus of what we call correct or normal, for example, the notion that there is an "out there" and so on. Going beyond that also leaves us to the "enlightened" theme.

When you say "where as I believe that there exists a bit more interplay taking place... that is beliefs tints what we conceptualize and experience as we conceptualize and experience stuff... sometimes even changing the experiences altogether", I do not think we are thinking differently.

And, what is "FWIIW" ? Sorry, Spanish is my primary language and haven't seen that yet. hehe

I struggle with the inside/outside thing from a different angle -- as I see it, we are not distinct from the "out there" but instead are an interacting component of the "what is."

 

Have you ever been in the mountains and experienced the distinction between fog and low clouds? In my perception, a similar relationship exists between inner & outer.

We are not speaking at different angles. I agree with that. That is what I meant when speaking of "structural coupling".

I think that every description, explanation, depiction, illustration, model or example is an abstraction. The loss of fidelity inherent in an abstraction is directly (but not solely) related to the match between the language being used and the particular characteristic of interest in the slice of reality one is attempting to portray. Mathematics is a language that is remarkably good for describing logical relationships but remarkably bad for describing the beauty of a sunset. It is excellent, however, for helping to explain the "how" of a sunset.

 

As to the question of inside vs. outside, I would say that very little of my math skills are inate. I would also say that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality, it is not that reality itself. Math is an invented language used to discuss "external" concepts from the logical side of reality.

I agree that math is just a language used to describe an aspect of reality. In my opinion we live in a world full of language (and language is not just words). When speaking about what's out there, or what exists independently of us, I think we cannot say anything. Just feel and maybe make some assumptions and inferences.

I need more people like all of you in the island I live!!

well kinda like heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you cant perfectly accurately describe an experience or something (darned though we may try) so it is simply an inherent limit of speech, not necessarily of conscious existence. that's why experiencing something conveys all sort of meaning that words simply cannot

I don't think we can go outside language. Maybe it's because I haven't had a moment that would change my opinion; I cannot say.

And hey! I want an update on the toilet thing!

julianlaboy,

 

In my talk I was talking about knowledge... and we did even got to the notion of the existence "out there" vs "only within". I started with the notion that knowledge only existed within a mind and considered that the notion of it existing "out there" absurd, though I do hold that there is a reality out there independent of us... in any event while it's impossible for us to go beyond what we are we can go beyond what we are under certain circumstances. The ideal can help us be more than we can be...

 

Now what we believe can help us or hinder us to understand what be "out there" ... some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are and some of it has to do with other stuff and of course there be other possibilities and realities. To make a long story short I eventually realized that beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse... in any event during the talk I learned to shift and translate between belief languages and even managed to understand that some functional properties are in fact related to the coordinate system used.

 

If you are interested in exploring this further let me know... what I have said here is a highly condensed... hope it help you see things

et-thoughts, love the name! hehe There is so much to talk about! I understood everything you said, don't worry.

I see subtle differences in what we think; we share a lot. The concept of "knowledge" is very important here. I do think that knowledge exists within a mind-body. I don't consider the notion of "out there" or "exists independetly of" as absurd. It is very practical and we can hold it up to a point. As you say, "The ideal can help us be more than we can be...". As I said to joeblast, the problem resides in the absolute and final manner in which we can be sure that we can point to (or think of) something and explain that "that" is "something a priori".

I love that "some of what is out there has everything to do with what we are" phrase. You are absolutely right and that's why I speak of a mind-body. In my humble opinion, it is impossible to explain or define something without making reference to something else.

You also say that "beliefs tints what one could perceive, which sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse". I agree, but I would be more careful saying that because I don't think that there are "correct" or "normal" perceptions. There are indeed consensus and that's why we say we understand each other. But that's completely statistical. Beliefs tints what one could perceive, but that happens after we conceptualize (consciously or not) a world (or worlds).

If I made things worse and made things confusing, sorry. I wanted to cover various things from your comments and got exited and maybe talked very incoherently, hehe.

imho a more descriptive phrase would be "exists independently of," rather than designations of here or there. sorta like the 'individual right to free speech' - it requires nothing of you in order for it to exist for anyone else. thusness exists, it needs nothing to sustain its existence. regardless of what we call it, the structural entity, the resonance, to core of the descriptor - the moon, not "the moon" or "luna" of whatever one calls it merely to be able to provide a frame of reference. mathematical entities are abstract descriptors that are about as close as you can get to an actual physical description - but its mostly by describing the relationships thereof.

 

euclidean geometry was not refuted, it was merely brought into its proper context as a geometry, not the geometry. einstein did not refute newton, he merely adjusted some fine tuning and made it more accurate, albeit with a much more complicated set of equations.

 

that's the beauty of "the game's rules" - if we wanted to show an alien something, a mathematical construct doesnt have different languages for one to call it 'something' vs 'something else.' examined on a level of relationships and you have what you have, regardless of what letter you use for a given variable.

 

 

man I hate fixing toilets (not being facetious, I needed a break )

You are absolutely right when you said "euclidean geometry was not refuted...", etc. When I posted that I immediately wanted to change it but meeeeeeh. That whole not-"the"-geometry point was what I wanted to communicate. The same happened with Einstein and his Theory of Relativity (special and more or less general) as you mentioned. And the same happened with the new set of rules given by quantum mechanics. I wanted to emphasize how change tends to define our rules.

What I was thinking was that maybe a reality exists independently of ourselves, but I just cannot say in an absolute and final manner that it does because we are indeed limited by being what we call a mind-body and however we describe it. We perceive it in the way that you say, and I agree. I also maintain that thusness exists. But I say it in my frame of reference as a human being (again a concept with different meanings...). I feel that I cannot say anything beyond that level of relationships. I'm speaking of something beyond changing the word "two" for "owt" but having the same rule. That's why I included the word ontology in the Subject. Objectivity is something that I fear cannot be explained without reference to ourselves as we view ourselves (pardon my redundancy).

And of course, best of luck with that toilet!! They are indeed tricky, hehe..

Today I talked with a friend of mine about mathematics. In general, he was saying that the content of math exists "out there". That we gave names to numbers and equations, but that it does not need us to exist. Numbers and their rules exist "a priori" (before we even know about them) rather than "a posteriori" (math needing us and how we experience it). He said the same about abstract/analytical logic. Math exists out there.

I said that math is just a game. We set the rules, we give names and that now exists by its own. Numbers and their rules have a circular manner to them because that is our way of explaining how we experience what we call the world. Euclidean geometry was refuted by present-day geometry, physics is giving way to certain "nonsense", among other examples of how numbers and math change with time. Of course, 2 + 2 = 4, and an alien will get it. But that will happen only when we explain (if they could understand our language) that game's rules. To my understanding, it's impossible to go beyond what we are (mind-body + structurally coupling with our circumstances). Because of that, saying that there is an ideal 2, or an ideal 4, or an ideal 2 + 2 = 4 is outside of what we can say about what we call world. I believe that there is a problem with saying what is "out there" because what is out there has everything to do with what we are.

What do you think?

And it worked. Hi and nice to meet you. You'll see very deep thoughts here!

In many cases, one may substitute the word "master" for "Taoist" also.

oodjee, I don't know if you read the entire thread. If you did you may have noticed that you and I share some thoughts.

Welcome to the Forum and peace to you too.

Awwww, I missed all the good stuff here. I just wanted to say kudos for every commentary here. Nice stuff. One can see the quality of the people on this Forum.

have you tried Origami? I find it relaxing.

what kind of practice? If I may...

and what about this koi!? I tried a kind of yin-yang position hehe

Thank you!

I don't know if I'm too new at this, but I don't see the image. I pressed the right-click, hit "View Image" and there it was. So, yeah... Yoda!!!

Made an origami Yoda (created by Fumiaki Kawahata) bu cutting a piece of brown almost tissue paper, painting one side green, folding the model, then applying some water so that the paper gets saturated with it and it doesn't get affected by climate change a lot... bla bla.... Yoda !!! hehe

Hope you all like it!

I'll follow the randomness.

I have "The Book of Tea" and it smells great! Really, the one published by Tuttle. It comes with a nice box and once you open it, wow... Books smell great, but that one is at another level...