The necessity of thought.

[Limahong]

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Any he .

 

No.

 

We need a she ~ for impregnation.

 

[Limahong]

16 minutes ago, Nungali said:

No, dead words ... as in words that are now defunct (I)

 

May everything dead ~ RIP.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Limahong
Enhancement

[Limahong]

18 minutes ago, Nungali said:

No, dead words ... as in words that are now defunct (II)

 

Now I need to rest to keep myself alive.

 

It is now Sunday at my end ~ not necessary for me to think about anything.

 

Good day.

 

 

[manitou]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

That...   ^  has     sorta 'bowled me over .   I cant comprehend that .

 

Do you mean YOUR mind or 'mind ' generally ?  I see my mind as separate, in a way , but contained and supported by physical body (and interconnected to 'consciousness' , on a few levels ) and physical body , in and connected to nature .  I cant comprehend a connection between mind and nature without body . 

 

As far as the separation goes  ( a  past  communication )   ;

 

"  Dear Mum (Mother Nature ) ,   life is hard at the moment ... can you please supply me with  ....... & ........ ?"

 

Big Mum ;   "No !  , Dont be such a wuss ! "

 

 

 

What a wonderful conundrum this is.  No - I was actually thinking of mother nature being contained within Mind.  Steve was going in the other direction - human nature.  That's kind of interesting, seeing as the crux of the Dao is that the dynamics of the universe reflect the dynamics of our own bodies.  That is worth some thought.

 

I don't see my mind as separate from yours.  I have processed my portion of mind according to my conditioning, you to yours.  I think that what lies at the bottom of our de-conditioning is the same essence - the same golden spark, the flame of our existence.  But I think of course, it's all mind.  It's all little atoms and neutrons and quarks spinning around and around - and one day I realized that for any matter to retain its shape, there must be a consciousness either within the object or the space around it.  It only makes sense?  What is to prevent all those little atoms from flying apart?  (I know - electromagnetics or something)  But...what is that?  The same as Love?

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I am sorry Limahong, but I have blocked you because I find your pictures/graphics fill up threads which makes the forum unreadable to me. Have you considered using them less? 

 

2 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

More pictures ~ less wordy mileage on beating about the bush. 

 

 

 

Lima,

You could also use 

Spoiler

spoiler boxes

as that would satisfy your posting needs and those of others who find the bright, flashy images distracting.... 
Win - win?

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

The influence of our language on our thinking is an often under-explored and under-estimated influence on the overall tone of our potential thinking (as it relates to local/ego/personality based thinking).

 

There seems to me an undeniable conceptual foundation in english that every verb requires a noun to propogate it.  Every verb is necessarily associated with a connecting noun which is by the structure of the language, implying that every verb of flowing motion is instigated by some static 'thing' which is a noun.

 

There are no nouns in my experience of reality... every "thing" when engaged with is revealed to be a verb in itself, that is verbing its presence in fluidic ever changing motion and unfolding while also simultaneously interchanging and unfolding/intermixing with all other aspects of the aggregates co=arising with it.

 

English to me seems limiting to thinking in many ways as it expresses as a clunky strange cobbled together manner of expressing concepts that it miscontrues the nature of in its manner of describing them.

 

I think you are touching on one reason that there is a negative connotation to thinking in some spiritual contexts. Language is a foundational element of thinking. It is necessarily limiting and incomplete and is, therefore, an obstacle to knowing/being/doing this thing that is happening. 

 

[doc benway]

19 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

What a wonderful conundrum this is.  No - I was actually thinking of mother nature being contained within Mind.  Steve was going in the other direction - human nature.  That's kind of interesting, seeing as the crux of the Dao is that the dynamics of the universe reflect the dynamics of our own bodies.  That is worth some thought.

 

Actually mind and Nature of Mind are not limited to human in my usage. All sentient beings “have” both and both encompass all of reality and non-reality alike. 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

8 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

What a wonderful conundrum this is.  No - I was actually thinking of mother nature being contained within Mind.  Steve was going in the other direction - human nature.  That's kind of interesting, seeing as the crux of the Dao is that the dynamics of the universe reflect the dynamics of our own bodies.  That is worth some thought.

 

I don't see my mind as separate from yours.  I have processed my portion of mind according to my conditioning, you to yours.  I think that what lies at the bottom of our de-conditioning is the same essence - the same golden spark, the flame of our existence.  But I think of course, it's all mind.  It's all little atoms and neutrons and quarks spinning around and around - and one day I realized that for any matter to retain its shape, there must be a consciousness either within the object or the space around it.  It only makes sense?  What is to prevent all those little atoms from flying apart?  (I know - electromagnetics or something)  But...what is that?  The same as Love?

 

Depends what you mean  ; atoms binding together into molecules or atoms binding together in themselves (ie atomic particles ) .

 

What holds atoms into molecules is  electro - static force .*    In the structure of an atom ,  electro - magnetic  force holds  the electrons to the atom and  the 'strong force' keeps the protons and neutrons together (in the nucleus )  .  The electrons have a negative charge, and the protons have a positive one , due to 'attraction of opposite charges ' atom stays together. THAT part is like love . 

 

" I am divided for love's sake , for the chance of union ."   -  Nuit .

 

* 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93584/why-do-atoms-stick-together

 

[Limahong]

22 minutes ago, steve said:

You could also use 

  Reveal hidden contents

spoiler boxes

as that would satisfy your posting needs and those of others who find the bright, flashy images distracting.... 
Win - win?

 

Good morning steve,

 

Thank you for your suggestion but I will not take it up. Why? I have nothing to hide.

 

"satisfy your posting needs" ~ I have no such needs. So there is no necessity for you to think along those lines.

 

Best win-win ~ I will stop posting.

 

A good weekend.

 

- Anand

 

[Bindi]

56 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Good morning steve,

 

Thank you for your suggestion but I will not take it up. Why? I have nothing to hide.

 

"satisfy your posting needs" ~ I have no such needs. So there is no necessity for you to think along those lines.

 

Best win-win ~ I will stop posting.

 

A good weekend.

 

- Anand

 

Lima, it’s not about you having anything to hide, it’s about using the hide function as a courtesy to some members who don’t get your pictorial style. I hope you do go on posting here though  

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

Good morning steve,

 

Thank you for your suggestion but I will not take it up. Why? I have nothing to hide.

 

"satisfy your posting needs" ~ I have no such needs. So there is no necessity for you to think along those lines.

 

Best win-win ~ I will stop posting.

 

A good weekend.

 

- Anand

 

I agree with Bindi, it’s not about hiding, more about consideration for others. Some people can be quite sensitive to bright, flashing lights. I’m one of them. I think it would be an act of compassion.

[liminal_luke]

On 29/8/2020 at 5:58 PM, steve said:

 

I think you are touching on one reason that there is a negative connotation to thinking in some spiritual contexts. Language is a foundational element of thinking. It is necessarily limiting and incomplete and is, therefore, an obstacle to knowing/being/doing this thing that is happening. 

 

 

What is it about language and ultimate reality?  The Dao that can be named is, quite famously, not the real Dao. Some Orthodox Jews are so hesitant to write the name of God, even in English, that they write G-d instead.  Everywhere people are talking about the sublime truths that "words can´t express"; meanwhile, nobody is talking about similar limitations in the realm or art or music.  It´s as if painters and musicians can soar to the heavens and the poor writers are limited to their grocery lists, banished by virtue of words themselves to the sad dualistic world.  Go directly to jail.  Do not collect $200.  

 

It´s true that nouns commonly refer to distinct things -- an apple, the computer, my "self."  What´s sometimes missed is the power of metaphor and image to evoke twilight states, paradox, the infinite.  Words by themselves are clumsy instruments, I grant you.  But when carefully arranged they can speak the unspeakable.  Syntax is magic.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by liminal_luke

[Bindi]

27 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

What is it about language and ultimate reality?  The Dao that can be named is, quite famously, not the real Dao.

 

There’s a distinct possibility in my mind that Laozi didn’t name the Dao because he couldn’t name the Dao, not because the Dao can’t be named. 

 

27 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Some Orthodox Jews are so hesitant to write the name of God, even in English, that they write G-d instead.  Everywhere people are talking about the sublime truths that "words can´t express"; meanwhile, nobody is talking about similar limitations in the realm or art or music.  It´s as if painters and musicians can soar to the heavens and the poor writers are limited to their grocery lists, banished by virtue of words themselves to the sad dualistic world.  Go directly to jail.  Do not collect $200.  

 

It´s true that nouns commonly refer to distinct things -- an apple, the computer, my "self."  What´s sometimes missed is the power of metaphor and image to evoke twilight states, paradox, the infinite.  Words by themselves are clumsy instruments, I grant you.  But when carefully arranged they can speak the unspeakable.  Syntax is magic.

 

 

 

[doc benway]

33 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

What is it about language and ultimate reality?  The Dao that can be named is, quite famously, not the real Dao. Some Orthodox Jews are so hesitant to write the name of God, even in English, that they write G-d instead.  Everywhere people are talking about the sublime truths that "words can´t express"; meanwhile, nobody is talking about similar limitations in the realm or art or music.  It´s as if painters and musicians can soar to the heavens and the poor writers are limited to their grocery lists, banished by virtue of words themselves to the sad dualistic world.  Go directly to jail.  Do not collect $200.  

 

It´s true that nouns commonly refer to distinct things -- an apple, the computer, my "self."  What´s sometimes missed is the power of metaphor and image to evoke twilight states, paradox, the infinite.  Words by themselves are clumsy instruments, I grant you.  But when carefully arranged they can speak the unspeakable.  Syntax is magic.

 

 

 

I agree that words can go to at least to the heights of art of the other 5 senses.

[forestofclarity]

It seems to me that conceptuality is one extreme, and nonconceptuality is the other. It is fashionable in spiritual circles to deride words and concepts as meaningless or obstructing the truth. It strikes me that it is easy to bullsh!t oneself and hide behind inexpressibility. However, not everything that is inexpressible is the same. The taste of sugar and the taste of sour candy are inexpressible, but very different. The qualia "red" and the taste of sugar are also both inexpressible, but quite different. 

 

There are a few ways I've seen conceptuality addressed in a reasonable way. One is by using subtler and subtler concepts to lead one to conceptuality. In Vedanta circles, this is often illustrated by using tree branches to point to bright stars, and using bright stars to lead one to a subtle, dimmer star. This happens with Tibetan Buddhism by leading the student through different vehicles or yanas. The other is using concepts as a pointer. I got a very real taste of this with Zen meditation. In Zen, I realized everyone was doing something different on their cushion. Some people were just thinking. Some people were resting in thinking. Some people would sink into a dull trance. Some people would develop fixed concentration and develop concentrative states.However, these are all nonconceptual states, but none are what Zen was pointing to. Yet using my words, most meditators will know what I am referring to. To me, this is the real value of Indo-Tibetan sources-- they have found a way to point to the inexpressible quite precisely. 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

What is it about language and ultimate reality?  The Dao that can be named is, quite famously, not the real Dao. Some Orthodox Jews are so hesitant to write the name of God, even in English, that they write G-d instead.  Everywhere people are talking about the sublime truths that "words can´t express"; meanwhile, nobody is talking about similar limitations in the realm or art or music.  It´s as if painters and musicians can soar to the heavens and the poor writers are limited to their grocery lists, banished by virtue of words themselves to the sad dualistic world.  Go directly to jail.  Do not collect $200.  

 

It´s true that nouns commonly refer to distinct things -- an apple, the computer, my "self."  What´s sometimes missed is the power of metaphor and image to evoke twilight states, paradox, the infinite.  Words by themselves are clumsy instruments, I grant you.  But when carefully arranged they can speak the unspeakable.  Syntax is magic.

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by forestofemptiness

[ilumairen]

The recent direction of the discussion brought this to mind:

 

Using language to evoke sensory experience is more useful in the teachings than are explanations confined to abstract and technical concepts. Though the real experience cannot be communicated easily in any language, images used in the teachings help when they are perceived by more than just the rational mind. These metaphors are to be experienced, as are the images in poetry. They are to mulled over, pondered, experimented with, and integrated into experience.
     ~ TWR Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep

[liminal_luke]

On 29/8/2020 at 9:32 PM, steve said:

 

I agree that words can go to at least to the heights of art of the other 5 senses.

 

There´s so much I don´t know.  Your post seems to me to allude to something that goes beyond the 5 senses altogether.  Such a dimension, level of awareness...not sure what to call it...might well exist for all I know but it´s hard for me to imagine.  I suppose the difficulty of imagining such a place is kind of the point.

[ilumairen]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

There´s so much I don´t know.  Your post seems to me to allude to something that goes beyond the 5 senses altogether.  Such a dimension, level of awareness...not sure what to call it...might well exist for all I know but it´s hard for me to imagine.  I suppose the difficulty of imagining such a place is kind of the point.

Have you ever gazed at/contemplated a painting until the boundary between the gazer and the object blurred?

[doc benway]

12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

There´s so much I don´t know.  Your post seems to me to allude to something that goes beyond the 5 senses altogether.  Such a dimension, level of awareness...not sure what to call it...might well exist for all I know but it´s hard for me to imagine.  I suppose the difficulty of imagining such a place is kind of the point.

 

In Buddhist and Bön paradigms, there are six senses - sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and thought. 

I was alluding to thought and words as the sixth sense.

What is "beyond" is often referred to as the Nature of Mind. 

Beyond is not an accurate term as it implies that it is something separate or apart from, that is not correct.

You're right, it cannot be imagined.

The experience arises when the mind rests from all of the activity of the six senses and is simply open and resting in its "Natural State."

[liminal_luke]

22 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Have you ever gazed at/contemplated a painting until the boundary between the gazer and the object blurred?

 

Considering your question, I think I may have.  But I´ve never put such experiences in those terms.  It sounds to me like getting so wrapped up in a visual experience that the self is momentarily forgotten.  Something akin to what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi identified as "flow."  

 

On a possibly related note, I´ve noticed that an aggressive (assertive?) aspect to the my normal mode of seeing.  It´s as though my eyes actively reach out and take in visual stimuli.  On a few occasions, I´ve softened my sense of self so that the worlds seem to come to me visually rather than the other way around.  It´s a more relational, intimate way of seeing.  Not sure if you see what I mean.

Edited August 30, 2020 by liminal_luke

[doc benway]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Considering your question, I think I may have.  But I´ve never put such experiences in those terms.  It sounds to me like getting so wrapped up in a visual experience that the self is momentarily forgotten.  Something akin to what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi identified as "flow."  

 

On a possibly related note, I´ve noticed that an aggressive (assertive?) aspect to the my normal mode of seeing.  It´s as though my eyes actively reach out and take in visual stimuli.  On a few occasions, I´ve softened my sense of self so that the worlds seem to come to me visually rather than the other way around.  It´s a more relationship, intimate way of seeing.  Not sure if you see what I mean.

The first mode of seeing you describe sounds a bit more like visually grasping.

The second seems more like visually allowing.

If you ever practice meditation with eyes open, this develops into a complicated dance of the "eye sense" which takes time to settle.

[manitou]

13 hours ago, Bindi said:

It´s true that nouns commonly refer to distinct things -- an apple, the computer, my "self."  What´s sometimes missed is the power of metaphor and image to evoke twilight states, paradox, the infinite.  Words by themselves are clumsy instruments, I grant you.  But when carefully arranged they can speak the unspeakable.  Syntax is magic.

 

 

 

Totally agreed.  And wasn't it the Nazarene who said something about metaphor sometimes being the only way to express a higher concept?

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by manitou
Although short, it wasn't quite right.

[zerostao]

On 8/24/2020 at 3:34 PM, Apech said:

Can we possibly have a gif, vid and pic embargo on this thread.  Please express yourselves in words.  It's much better in the long run.

I respect that. I was going to post a single video hidden in a spoiler box. Imo totally on topic. I could type all of the narrator's words. Aint feeling that, though.

[Taomeow]

Are thoughts necessary?  I think (well, of course) it's a little like...  OK, here's an example.  Our county is reopening pedicure salons tomorrow which have been closed under quarantine orders since mid-March.  Some of my female friends rejoiced -- it is absolutely necessary for them to get a pedicure ASAP they say, they'll be at the doors of the salons first thing in the morning, can't wait!! 

 

Well, I've never had a pedicure in my life, I believe my toenails look perfectly fine in their natural state and I don't feel it's absolutely necessary to do anything to them "professionally."  But those women have been using nail polish and what-not on them for decades, so now their natural state is scary to look at (due to decades of no breathing and breeding the resulting fungi).  So, they need professional pedicure because they've been using professional pedicure.

 

I think it's like that with thinking too.       

[Apech]

1 hour ago, zerostao said:

I respect that. I was going to post a single video hidden in a spoiler box. Imo totally on topic. I could type all of the narrator's words. Aint feeling that, though.

 

 

i think you get my general point.

 

an occasional video on a spoiler box isn't a problem

 

but I still prefer written conversation because I'm getting a bit senile