PLB

For the time being, I hope that the process of verification you propose remains a thought experiment.

Take the discussion above concerning systems of measurements as forms of shared experience. As a matter of scientific method the idea was advanced by Percy Williams Bridgman through his advocacy for what he called "operational concepts", which has been generally defined as: "The view that all theoretical terms in science must be defined only by their procedures or operations." As a scientist, Bridgman did not put forward this idea as a philosophy of meaning but as a restraint on the models built for the purpose of controlled experiments in physics. The linked article does a good job of showing how this idea was employed and/or opposed over the last hundred years. As much of the discussion in this thread demonstrates, the idea has become deeply entangled in questions about meaning and what "models" are reflections of or not. For instance, Behaviorists took up Bridgman's banner to build a model of human life that did not assume immediate experience, intuition, and insight as integral components of the phenomena. They were subtracting the "subjective" in the way Seth Ananda is subtracting the "objective" as cognitive illusion up thread. The problem with both approaches is that they become models that now somehow include what has been excluded. In this way, their approaches share the problem Kant made for himself when he saved the pursuit of the laws of nature from the solipsism of Berkeley and the sceptism of Hume but lost his neighborhood of fellow beings. He had accidentally explained them away.

One result of absorbing all the functions of the "objective" register into the realm of the subjective is that it qualifies the character of knowlege in an overly objective manner. Kant demonstrated this quality when he argued that the way things are in themselves was outside of the reach of human understanding. The "transcedental illusion" he would bring to an end is accompanied by a very specific description of how we can discover nature and universal qualities. The humility expressed in regards to approaching the reality of the real is nowhere to be seen when he claims to understand how we understand. His Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics could just as well have been titled: The Only Stuff that can be Learned through Perception and Experience. By the measure of Zhuangzi, such a confidently expressed psychology is awfully presumptious.

Some of those systems do a better job of approaching what is being measured than others. It doesn't require reifying the "object" to accept that there are differences of that kind. Otherwise we might as well stop talking altogether. Talking happens as a result of an outburst in the assumption of some kind of objectivity. The problem with dissolving all attempts to separate the real from illusion into a goo of subjective whimsy is that it wars against the essential desire to separate truth from bullshit.

If there are no consequences that result from my words and actions, nothing I say or do matters in any way to myself or others. The idea sounds like being dead. Not just dead but dead long enough for anything I say or do to be completely forgotten. That will come soon enough. I see no value in hurrying the process along.

What are you practicing?

One facet of the classical texts that fascinates me is the way ostensibly purely personal pursuits end up influencing "this plane." The people who wrote these words were obviously very interested in how forms of life connected with each other. I see it this way: The goal is not to gain entrance to an escape module. It is to stand in the middle of life and take what comes without fear.

I am not on board with any project to change the "ruling class" by fooling with their breeding program. I would rather see them lose their monopoly on power and the influence that power imparts upon what happens next. That could only happen as a change in our culture, not as a reboot of the theme of Enlightened Depotism. That is not to say the smart despotism solution is not awfully darn attractive at times. But the temptation needs to be set aside as a shortcut that leads to nowhere. If the "empire" as presented in classical texts is a valid idea, I reject the idea it is simply the continuance of one family's fortune over the fortunes of another.

Three treasures with a sprinkle of five element qigong. Wrap it to go,

I will come, probably Saturday. Thank you for the invitation.

That is Columbus Park. All kinds of things happen there that would not be a good idea trying elsewhere.

I talk shop in my work. It helps one understand all the conditions one is operating within. But it is not very seemly. Perhaps it should happen down in that lower area known as the Pavillion.

When I am at work, I look to do anything to address whatever would make me perform and feel better at the time. When I am stuck in a very small circle of movement as a result of what I am working at, I like to have the break time of release be the opposite: long step low flow of Yang style ward off, or the other stretched out moves in the form. But when I have am running around like a chicken with its head cut off and need a lot of mental clarity to keep track of all the things that need to be addressed, I do standing practices to still the fluttering in my heart and maybe slow down time itself should it be ameanable to influence. So I am not focused upon the excercises in the way I try to be when doing one of the forms I practice. It is more like: What do I have in my toolkit that can help me now. For instance, I have been doing a lot of the feet turned in, palms forward, elbows horizontal, closed, Bagua posture because it really opens my lower back and kwa. I am not practicing that art but this particular position really addresses my condition and weaknesses in real time. The job I am doing has my body stretched out where it is important to be strong at the ends. In other words, everything you do at work is gong fu. It works some part of you or it ain't work. And the activity will imbalance you. You will strive to recover your balance. Well, you probably get the idea. You have a toolkit with whatever you are practicing now. Put it to the test. Stand there doing what you can and see where you end up. You are an important source of information.

Comment removed by author for being too grouchy. Sorry about that.

Don't think I am wooing. Angel, and if I were! You wouldn't come. For my call is always full of "Away!" Against such a powerful current you can't advance. My call to you is like a stiff, outstretched arm. And its hand, splayed and raised for grasping, stays before you always, as if to warn and ward off, ungraspable one,--its palm out, wide open. The last paragraph of the Seventh Elegy by Rainer Maria Rilke, translated by Edward Snow

Greetings. I think it is possible to make much progress without the help of an immediate teacher. That isn't to say that having the resource would not make a big difference. We all just have to get on with what we got.

This minds me of the way Sun Lu Tang spoke of form as the aquisition of a specific body. So the matter of velocity becomes different in different shapes. Apples and oranges are laughing at us somewhere.

I always thought the classical passages concerning the cruelty of nature was a polite way to talk about the food chain. It is lot easier to be polite on one end of it than the other.

Freedom vs Causality is one way to think about choices. The framework appears in large expressions of what is the ultimate (like a theology) as well as much smaller objectives to separate options from the inevitable. My tiny mind cannot synthesize what having the notion appear in such different neighborhoods mean. I am pretty sure they are different locations, though. So I take more of a center out approach. If I am a prisoner wearing chains in a ship somewhere, I am a lot less free than someone who can make a choice amongst a limited set of possibilities in a society shaped by bias and the power of favor. If I am able to have enough freedom to spend a significant portion of my energy to do what I think is right, then I become a player in the field of conditions. There are degrees of freedom and when we are given something like a range of possibility, we may or may not take advantage of it. In the Christian tradition, the definition I am most attracted to is that formulated by Kierkegaard: Freedom is the abilty to do. The formulation accepts that many other factors have to be happening for it to be possible. But if you don't actually take responsibility for being the one who acts, there is nothing. And more than that, a submission to the nothing. You have made your choice.

Somethimes humility doesn't look like it. When you demonstrate a skill at work or in difficult situations with people, it is often made light of by the act being described as showing off or gaining some benefit for blatantly self interested reasons. And many times that is the last word; There is an exchange that is recognized and appreciated between people but it is not called out as such and is just there. One of the things that happens. That can be a beautiful thing. On the other hand, there are times when one has to very clearly let go of some claim or assumption of special regard. In both expressions, timing and sensitivity to what is happening are essential. Humility is a lot more than a good intention. It is an ability, learned over a long time, after many hard lessons. I wish I had started earlier.

Your version makes for a better explanation. But Descartes wasn't describing a sequence of causality. He was saying why he was sure that he existed. The condition is given to him, he didn't create it.

I think, therefore, I am. In terms of establishing the certainty that this being here exists, the statement is a valid starting point for one concerned with establishing certainty. It is circular reasoning that accepts that shape as a point of departure. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't deny anything. The opposite of that statement would be: I think, therefore, I am not. For this sentence to scan, I would have to abandon the immediacy of the first statement, The opposite statement claims I am not the being thinking about being myself. The certainty discussed in the first statement now involves the end of an experience of immediacy in regards to thinking. Unlike the first statement, it would explain everything. Both statements suffer from an absolute quality that is outside of what living a life is trying to teach us. But if I have to choose between them in a game of either/or, I will take the first statement. It is more graceful than the second.

If spirituality has to go, then materiality must be done away with at the same time. They are a matched set that cannot exist without the other. Science won't care if both sides of the antinomy go poof. Science works at establishing links of causality that can be proven through experiment. Experiments are a process of isolating causes from other conditions. It is a powerful method and is the center of our technological developments along with advances in our of understanding this place we find ourselves alive within. But science doesn't validate the idea of matter as something that exists a priori. Physics has left that port of call long ago. What works as science in Psychology is even further from declaring there is this basic underlying stuff and then there are various combinations of what one can do with that aforesaid stuff. The scientist in those fields don't talk that way any longer. They are working on what distinguishes one model from another and what the story becomes in each articulation. Kant died. We have to move on.

The idea of choosing involves looking for differences. Synthesis can be good. What makes it good cannot happen without being able to see how they are are different. I am just a piker struggling to understand lots of things that overwhelm me. So I do not claim to speak with any authority. I say the following without pretending to have some kind of ultimate argument that can stand as a last word. It is just an account of how I separate the two pursuits (Taoist/Bhuddist) in my thinking. What strongly attracts me to the Taoist texts and the practices based upon their cosmology is that they don't talk about a self. It comes up but more as a demonstration of the result of adherence to a process than being a reason why stuff happens the way it does. One way to look at the development of different kinds of psychology is to see how different systems describe why the things that are happening with people are happening. So these different systems connect what is happening in life with other people in different ways. What if some models are better than others? How would one go about asking which is best? When I read Zhuangzi, I hear him bearing down on that problem. The emphasis is upon the use of logic in language. Unlike many other thinkers, he doesn't actually give an answer. He just explains why it is hard to talk about. But he does say the world is the way it is because of the way it was formed. I really like that. He doesn't try to prove what he is acting upon as the truth. He isn't even explaining it. But he does a good job of explaining why he cannot explain it.

Superpowers would be great. Flying through space and throwing out balls of energy would make life really interesting. The work you are considering taking on may lead to that. I don't know. I do know that there are all kinds of good experiences available to you even if you don't acheive the level of power you imagine can be had through the practice. So it is possible that you have predetermined a set of boundary conditions that will interfere with beginning the work. This is not unusual. I certainly started with a lot of ideas that I cannot even articulate any longer. .