a dualistic singularity and the natural manner(Wu Wei)...

[Marblehead]

So where to now?

 

Even the defining of "wu wei" and "yo wei" is dualistic thinking, isn't it?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name. A rose just be. However, it is not just the rose but it is the entire plant as well as the soil it is planted in and the nutrients it lives on.

 

And along comes man. "What a beautiful rose." Does that imply that there are ugly roses?

 

Is it possible to view the rose without making our subjective valuations? I think it is. Would this be thinking in the singularity?

[et-thoughts]

The old man was able to determine what it was not based on the individual perceptions of the others. It was not a leaf, nor a tree trunk, not, etc. It was an elephant. 'Is' and 'is not' is dualistic thinking. I think we have to think dualistic before we can think 'what is'.

 

The tree. Yes, a tree just be. But we must first define what a tree is before we can agree that it is a tree. But the tree doesn't care what you call it.

 

What? The tree fell? All fall down! Did it make a sound? Was there anyone to hear it? If yes then it made a sound. If ne then all that happened was energy vibrations were sent out around it until the energy disipated (changed into something else). In this case there would have been no sound, only vibration.

 

ehm... I see you focusing and looking at the pointing finger, rather than focusing and looking at the moon :-) and look here there exists a subtle distinction to observe. " 'Is' and 'is not' (BE) dualistic thinking"... and "'what be' be 'what be'" be 'singularistic' thinking. The reason we think dualistic may well be dew to inherited thinking parents... look at a baby does the baby think dualistically? The moon in my example corresponds to the singular integrating perspective contrasted to the singular individual perspectives. The old man who knows the elephant as an elephant can understand and take any singular individual perspective. Recall that the challenge was to define what a 'singularity perspective' is/be. I wonder if we have to first think to see ... some seem to experience stuff first then go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that. Of course some go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that and then experience stuff... in most cases its a bit more intertwined, a little of thinking and a little of experiencing ... DO we have to think dualistic before we can think 'what is'... NA babies seem to just experience-think-experience... there exists an interesting language called e-prime (english without the verb to be/is) that I found useful. I believe it is possible to learn stuff by knowing 'what be' and that knowing 'what isn't' isn't necessary... those who know the truth, need not know any lies... while those who know the lie may still ignore the truth (they just know what is not is not, that a lie is a lie, even-though they do not know the truth. For example one may know that the lie said that: "the moon is made of cheese" without knowing what the moon is made of.

 

"all that happened was energy vibrations were sent out around it until the energy dissipated" how do we KNOW that be what takes place? The question of 'does the falling tree make a sound' hinges upon what constitutes a sound...

[et-thoughts]

So where to now?

 

Even the defining of "wu wei" and "yo wei" is dualistic thinking, isn't it?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name. A rose just be. However, it is not just the rose but it is the entire plant as well as the soil it is planted in and the nutrients it lives on.

 

And along comes man. "What a beautiful rose." Does that imply that there are ugly roses?

 

Is it possible to view the rose without making our subjective valuations? I think it is. Would this be thinking in the singularity?

 

the Subjective becomes objective based on singular distinctions used...

hot cold is a subjective fuzzy distinction

0 ( °C, °F, K - Celsius/ Fahrenheit's / Kelvin ) be a more objective singular distinction

 

So the more precise our distinctions are the less subjective and more objective the distinctions become

(of course 'the more precise our distinctions are' may mean the more pertinent to the subject matter and thus the more subjective). The core of the point here centers on getting that:

- subjective is a fuzzy distinction (valuation)

- objective is a precise distinction (valuation)

- how we define stuff determines what we see and a bit more

 

Right now something 'clicked' in relation to "wu wei" and "yo wei".

"wu wei" = what is

"yo wei" = what isn't

also "wu wei" = what be

 

What be includes the dualistic notions of 'what is and what isn't' , the singular notion of 'what be', and a bit more

 

And along comes man. "What a beautiful rose." Does that imply that there are ugly roses?

WELL WELL lets see wether the statement be true or false...

...and wether the man that comes along be an ugly one or a beautiful one!

 

I hold that the notions of what constitutes 'a subjective valuation' will tint what we find... IS A rose a rose by any other name? Is a flower a flower dew to what it be or what constitutes it being a flower. A better example could be the color red ... IS red red by any other name? (note this has a lot to do with stuff we create and project)

 

"However, it is not just the rose but it is the entire plant as well as the soil it is planted in and the nutrients it lives on".

Interesting... the rose contains the entire creation and is contained within the creation... and still the conceived rose exists without and within creation ...before it exists while it exists and after it exists... the conceived rose 'just' exists... the same for each cell...

 

OK back to this thread central topic... "

 

a dualistic singularity and the natural manner

 

 

Focusing on " the stories we like to tell and cultivate"...

Considering that there be so more good around why is it that the stories told tend to focus on what is not desirable rather than what is desirable... the natural manner would be to tell the stories according to what we desire to cultivate and what we value... still it seems we choose to allow other stuff to happen... seduced and entrapped into empowering and feeding that which entraps us rather than directing and entrapping the entrapper within a liberating dance that empowers and feeds that which liberates us. Marblehead if its ok with you... I would use something you said today... actually I am assuming it is ok with you ... today you provided us with a good example of doing that which one claims one will not do... and sort of denying what one be doing... you responded in a post "That is so close I'm not even going to speak to it". Note that your response did speak to it, though claimed otherwise... For a while now I know of the paradoxical incongruency of the judgement call 'of not judging' and point out that while we be forced to judge we be free to choose how to judge...To me a denial of what be eventually leads down a slippery slope into a prison that does not actually exist while still keeping those there quite entrapped (because their thinking its impossible, makes it impossible, and because of other stuff). I prefer the recognition of what be including what be possible with a bias towards the good stuff... (yea some bad stuff is possible and should once and for all remain as just a mere possibility)... until we find the way or the way finds us... we ought to wonder, ponder and question the way...

[Marblehead]

"all that happened was energy vibrations were sent out around it until the energy dissipated" how do we KNOW that be what takes place? The question of 'does the falling tree make a sound' hinges upon what constitutes a sound...

Ha. I"m going no further. Check it out.

[Marblehead]

ehm... I see you focusing and looking at the pointing finger, rather than focusing and looking at the moon :-)

And so, when the two of us are standing outside and you suddenly raise your arm and create a pointing finger and say "Look", I think it is natural to look at the pointing finger. But then you say, "Not at my finger, the moon." Then I follow the direction of the pointing finger and see the moon.

 

I really think we shouldn't get into the subjective/objective discussion as it would be distracting from what you are pointing at.

 

"I wonder if we have to first think to see ... some seem to experience stuff first then go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that."

 

Works both way, I think. The only thing I would point out is that we sometimes sit thinking and through our thoughts cause ourself to have an experience. No value judgement here but we can be creating ourself a bunch of illusions and delusions that way.

[Marblehead]

the Subjective becomes objective based on singular distinctions used...

 

Oh! No!!! You did it!!!

[et-thoughts]

Ha. I"m going no further. Check it out.

 

I am left wondering why you choose that ....

I would prefer continuing the interchange/ adventure to see what we discover though understand how some choose to follow other paths... rather than venture over the abyss ... its happen before... I make a comment and point something out and some become petrified, I wished they would just keep on going hovering on... but hey thanks for the opportunity I enjoyed and learned from this... hope you did the same

[Marblehead]

- subjective is a fuzzy distinction (valuation)

- objective is a precise distinction (valuation)

- how we define stuff determines what we see and a bit more

 

Right now something 'clicked' in relation to "wu wei" and "yo wei".

"wu wei" = what is

"yo wei" = what isn't

also "wu wei" = what be

Do I see a contradiction here?

 

Subjective is based on the individual's perception. All individuals may see the same objective thing from a different perspective.

 

Yo is the physical universe. This is "what be".

 

"Wu wei" is natural action (or inaction). What is natural for one person might well be totally unnatural for another.

 

In my belief system, Yo is the Manifest, the physical universe; Wu is the Mystery, what has not yet manifested (potential).

[et-thoughts]

And so, when the two of us are standing outside and you suddenly raise your arm and create a pointing finger and say "Look", I think it is natural to look at the pointing finger. But then you say, "Not at my finger, the moon." Then I follow the direction of the pointing finger and see the moon.

 

I really think we shouldn't get into the subjective/objective discussion as it would be distracting from what you are pointing at.

 

"I wonder if we have to first think to see ... some seem to experience stuff first then go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that."

 

Works both way, I think. The only thing I would point out is that we sometimes sit thinking and through our thoughts cause ourself to have an experience. No value judgement here but we can be creating ourself a bunch of illusions and delusions that way.

 

Marblehead,

 

"when the two of us are standing outside and you suddenly raise your arm and create a pointing finger and say 'Look', I think it is natural to look at the pointing finger". Sure it is natural to look at the pointing finger to see where it be pointing... and then it is natural to followthrough and focus on what be pointed to, rather than focusing on the finger :-) though I also realize other possibilities including how difficult it can be to actually determine what be pointed to... by ourselves... can be! its much easier to wonder out loud! Yea sometimes ones thinking, our thoughts, cause ourself to have an experience. The same could be said in other words... replace 'thinking' with 'feelings' 'faith' 'expectations' 'habits'... Indeed we can be creating ourself a bunch of illusions and delusions and dreams and experiences and feelings and memories and realities and more...

 

I considered the subjective/objective topic in line and complementing with what we were focusing on... though we can leave it aside... the point on the microscope as I see it focuses on dialoguing about duality what is and what isn't and singularity what be

[Marblehead]

Considering that there be so more good around why is it that the stories told tend to focus on what is not desirable rather than what is desirable... the natural manner would be to tell the stories according to what we desire to cultivate and what we value... still it seems we choose to allow other stuff to happen... seduced and entrapped into empowering and feeding that which entraps us rather than directing and entrapping the entrapper within a liberating dance that empowers and feeds that which liberates us. Marblehead if its ok with you... I would use something you said today... actually I am assuming it is ok with you ... today you provided us with a good example of doing that which one claims one will not do... and sort of denying what one be doing... you responded in a post "That is so close I'm not even going to speak to it". Note that your response did speak to it, though claimed otherwise... For a while now I know of the paradoxical incongruency of the judgement call 'of not judging' and point out that while we be forced to judge we be free to choose how to judge...To me a denial of what be eventually leads down a slippery slope into a prison that does not actually exist while still keeping those there quite entrapped (because their thinking its impossible, makes it impossible, and because of other stuff). I prefer the recognition of what be including what be possible with a bias towards the good stuff... (yea some bad stuff is possible and should once and for all remain as just a mere possibility)... until we find the way or the way finds us... we ought to wonder, ponder and question the way...

I have no idea what I will do next. Conditions may or may not present themselves. If nothing is presented then there would be no reason for me to act. However, if conditions do present themselves, the substance of the conditions will pretty much determine what I will do.

 

Can I say I would never do 'such and such'? I would be lying if I did. Oh, sure, there are some things I will never do again. I will never get married again. Hehehe. But to try predicting the future is an error, I think.

 

In my real life I always concentrate on the positive. Sure, I consider the negative - the what if's - but I don't get all wrapped up in that stuff. I don't watch the news, it's too depressing. I have enough in my life so I don't need worry about the life of others.

 

True, we rarely hear about all the good things that are going on around the world. Hey!, who wants to hear good news? We want to know who's winning; who's killing who.

 

The world, the universe is dualistic - creation and destruction - birth and death. What happened between the two?

 

Yes, I make judgement calls all the time. Just a little while ago I made two. One pond pump I decided to keep on commercial power instead of switching it to solar because the sky is partly cloudy and the system would not be putting out enough energy to run the additional pump. Then I looked at the water level and decided that it was a little low so I added more water to it so that it was at a level I was happy with. Both these actions were based on my subjective observations. The objective influencing data allowed me to, in one case take no action and in the other case to take action. My only other options were to clear the sky of clouds and stop the water from evaporating. I ain't that powerful yet.

 

Our entire life is determined by "what is" (objective) and how we decide to interact with it (subjective).

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

"when the two of us are standing outside and you suddenly raise your arm and create a pointing finger and say 'Look', I think it is natural to look at the pointing finger".

Yeah, maybe I wanted you to look at my fingernail.

 

Hehehe. Well, I just spoke to the "objective/subjective" so it is too late to not speak to it.

[et-thoughts]

Marblehead,

 

 

Yo is the physical universe, the Manifest.

Wu is the Mystery, what has not yet manifested (potential), the possibility that become real or remain as a possibility

would that mean that

wei is action (including none-action)

 

BTW What is natural for one person might well be totally unnatural for the person its just that they still have to learn what be natural for them to do.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

 

Yo is the physical universe, the Manifest.

Wu is the Mystery, what has not yet manifested (potential), the possibility that become real or remain as a possibility

would that mean that

wei is action (including none-action)

 

BTW What is natural for one person might well be totally unnatural for the person its just that they still have to learn what be natural for them to do.

Yes, wei, as in wu wei, is also non-action.

 

The universe is dynamic. Everything is changing. Even doing nothing is doing. Yeah, I know.

 

What would normally be unnatural for a person may be the only choice in-so-far-as doing or not doing so the person may take an unnatural action because it is the only thing to do short of doing nothing.

 

We need be careful when talking about what is natural as it will vary between individuals.

[et-thoughts]

Marblehead

 

Ok relax, take a deep breath, hold it.... hold it... hold it... OK what I will do next...

 

LOL I found something you said hilarious ... "In my real life I always concentrate on the positive. Sure, I consider the negative - the what if's - but I don't get all wrapped up in that stuff. I don't watch the news, it's too depressing. I have enough in my life so I don't need worry about the life of others". Do you see the humor?

 

I do believe you that you want to concentrate on the positive... though its rather peculiar how you when on and focused on... depressing worries rather than energizing caring notions .-)

 

If nothing is presented then one can choose to present what one desires ... one need not have a reason to act, one can just choose to act, because one so chooses to do it... love work that way... if the conditions do or do not present themselves one can work to create them... the substance of the conditions need not determine what one will do... for what one will do determines the conditions and arrangements of the substances...

 

The world, the universe be... life expands and multiplies ... the temporality of death will soon die off... as the eternity of live lives on and then there will be beginnings that endure and last forevermore...

 

I see other possibilities and that life determines life... and how to live... liked the distinctions you used

"what is" (objective) and how we decide to interact with it (subjective).

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Yes, relax. This is only a discussion of our understandings. We both could be wrong. What!?!? Dualistic thinking again?

 

I won't go into the "last forevermore". There are only two things I would consider eternal: Tao and Tzujan (its natural processes).

 

Singularity: I suggest that the closest we can get to singularity would be to jump into a black hole - a place where no "things" exist.

[et-thoughts]

Yes, wei, as in wu wei, is also non-action.

 

The universe is dynamic. Everything is changing. Even doing nothing is doing. Yeah, I know.

 

What would normally be unnatural for a person may be the only choice in-so-far-as doing or not doing so the person may take an unnatural action because it is the only thing to do short of doing nothing.

 

We need be careful when talking about what is natural as it will vary between individuals.

 

wu wei - mystery action - that includes what one does and does not do

 

if everything is changing then change itself is changing... and eventually everything will just be in a perpetual way of being ...

 

BTW the notion that one only has one choice is a bit absurd to me... everyone is forced to be while free to determine how they will be...

 

Some believe that stuff varies between individuals and that the individuals determine the stuff when the individuals just choose what to do with the stuff... talking about what is natural would naturally lead us to what is natural... unless we seek what is unnatural Knowingly or not covertly or openly..

[et-thoughts]

Yes, wei, as in wu wei, is also non-action.

 

The universe is dynamic. Everything is changing. Even doing nothing is doing. Yeah, I know.

 

What would normally be unnatural for a person may be the only choice in-so-far-as doing or not doing so the person may take an unnatural action because it is the only thing to do short of doing nothing.

 

We need be careful when talking about what is natural as it will vary between individuals.

 

wu wei - mystery action - that includes what one does and does not do

 

if everything is changing then change itself is changing... and eventually everything will just be in a perpetual way of being ...

 

BTW the notion that one only has one choice is a bit absurd to me... everyone is forced to be while free to determine how they will be...

 

Some believe that stuff varies between individuals and that the individuals determine the stuff when the individuals just choose what to do with the stuff... talking about what is natural would naturally lead us to what is natural... unless we seek what is unnatural knowingly or not covertly or openly...

[Marblehead]

if everything is changing then change itself is changing... and eventually everything will just be in a perpetual way of being ...

 

That would be Singularity - a condition where there are no things. What was before the big bang. We don't want to go there.

 

BTW the notion that one only has one choice is a bit absurd to me... everyone is forced to be while free to determine how they will be...

 

Some people have no choices. Many children on this planet are still starving to death.

 

Some believe that stuff varies between individuals and that the individuals determine the stuff when the individuals just choose what to do with the stuff... talking about what is natural would naturally lead us to what is natural... unless we seek what is unnatural knowingly or not covertly or openly...

Yep. We can talk about what is natural for you or for me. I think that even you and I would differ in what is natural for us. We can't even talk about others because unless they speak we have no idea.

[et-thoughts]

We both could be wrong. What!?!? Dualistic thinking again?

 

I won't go into the "last forevermore". There are only two things I would consider eternal: Tao and Tzujan (its natural processes).

 

Singularity: I suggest that the closest we can get to singularity would be to jump into a black hole - a place where no "things" exist.

 

Nay, Its more like negative thinking ... and we can choose and benefit from more of a positive one... right?

if you agree then you see the point ... if you don't well you see another point... which point would you rather hold and keep the good one or the bad one? Sure there are many possibilities some of them much better than the others

 

Maybe when you get through reading this post you will consider other stuff eternal ... and see many singularities ... including that black holes contain quite a bit of stuff... I venture to say that you know of the ripples in the pond caused by a stone 'dissipate' and permeate. I imagine you can imagine that the ripples move the water, the air, the earth and (at least in principle) eventually propagate throughout the universe... sure an infinitely imperceptible ripple the further from the original point while still detectable by infinitely sensible being. Well the actions, words, thoughts, feelings we create are like little stones thrown into the pond... they have an instant singular beginning and then dissipate and permeate everything they have a beginning and "last forevermore".

 

the other example I thought of for a singularity that is eternal was the absolute meaning of a word... it is created when used and set forevermore ... of course every time we use it we set it and again and again create the absolute meaning of that new singular word forevermore (usually in line with the previous singularities). Hope you manage to see the point I wanted to convey here...

 

To transcend the dualistic thinking we need to find a singular point where all are distinctly unique while identical... this can be observed with the singular absolute meaning of words... What was said and what was heard are two separate instances when they are identical though clearly separate if you know one you know the other while distinguishing them apart and together...

[et-thoughts]

Marblehead

 

Being alive in a perpetual way of being alive and creating life ... can be an eternal way of being...

 

There can exists singularities where there are enriching expanding things ...

 

Everyone has many choices even if they do not see them nor choose them...

Yes some people choose not to choose and hold that they have no choices.

Yes Many children on this planet are still starving to death... dew to the choices made by some individuals ( to act a certain way or not to act a certain way).

 

OK its now time to choose once and for all... and now its again that time ... and now it again that time...

 

We certainly can talk about what is natural for you or for me AND also about what is natural.

Sure you and I would differ in what is natural for us and we may even differ in what is natural.

What we consider/hold/believe natural does not determine what be natural ... what be be what be

if what we consider natural corresponds to what be natural then we get it else we just think that we get it

We can talk about others and what be natural if we know others and what be natural

wether they speak or not is irrelevant when we actually know and have a clear accurate idea that does correspond to what be

[Marblehead]

Nay, Its more like negative thinking ... and we can choose and benefit from more of a positive one... right?

if you agree then you see the point ... if you don't well you see another point... which point would you rather hold and keep the good one or the bad one? Sure there are many possibilities some of them much better than the others

 

Well, of course. I am an optimist. But I do not place my expectations on others. I am also a realist.

 

BTW My world is perfect.

 

the other example I thought of for a singularity that is eternal was the absolute meaning of a word... it is created when used and set forevermore ... of course every time we use it we set it and again and again create the absolute meaning of that new singular word forevermore (usually in line with the previous singularities). Hope you manage to see the point I wanted to convey here...

 

Naw. Words have value only if there is someone to speak them and someone else to hear and understand them.

 

Remember, there was a time when there was no life on this planet. We know of no other life in the universe. Before there were people there were no words. After people there will be no words.

 

To transcend the dualistic thinking we need to find a singular point where all are distinctly unique while identical... this can be observed with the singular absolute meaning of words... What was said and what was heard are two separate instances when they are identical though clearly separate if you know one you know the other while distinguishing them apart and together...

You confused me with that one. Hehehe. Is that something like "separate but equal"? You do know that was BS don't you? There are some things I know. There are other things I assume to be true. There are many things I do not know nor understand.

 

I admire your desire to have a non-dualistic thinking mind. I wish you luck. But remember, the rest of the universe is dualistic. There is one thing then there is space between all other things - space between our sun and our planet. That's the way it has to be else the planet and we would not exist. The hot stove-top is still hot no matter how we apply our subjective thinking to it. And the tree is still a tree. That's what be.

[ChiDragon]

So where to now?

 

Even the defining of "wu wei" and "yo wei" is dualistic thinking, isn't it?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name. A rose just be. However, it is not just the rose but it is the entire plant as well as the soil it is planted in and the nutrients it lives on.

 

And along comes man. "What a beautiful rose." Does that imply that there are ugly roses?

 

Is it possible to view the rose without making our subjective valuations? I think it is. Would this be thinking in the singularity?

 

When we are talking about "duality", it has to be one is the complement of the other. In this case, ugly is the complement of beautiful. However, a rose does not have a complement. Thus a rose can be thinking in the singularity but not a dualistic singularity.

 

By the definition of duality, "what is" and "what isn't" are not necessary a duality. It is a duality, only, if the "what is" is the complement of "what isn't", then it would be considered to be a valid duality.

Edited August 15, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Thanks for the comments ChiDragon. I agree with your reasoning.

[manitou]

Here's a different angle -

 

The sage knows that he is part of the All. There is no differentiation between the atoms in his arm and the atoms in that rock over there. Perhaps this is the singularity that is his mindset. He knows that by not interfering with the course of things (wu wei, no intent) things will shake out just the way they're supposed to. He thinks with'singularity because he knows he is part of the Singular. There is no duality - no judgment - no good, bad, desirable, undesirable. It's just all One Big Movie and he's sitting on the observation deck watching it.

 

He can choose either to See or to Experience, depending on his mindset.

[Marblehead]

Well, yeah, that's an angle. Sure ain't no square.