RE: "That nice engineer" - Discussion
Hi Yuri,
With regard to the experience of "no thoughts," I seem to recall that Bernadette Roberts, a Catholic contemplative who died a couple years ago and explored what she called the "No-Self" condition, in a manner that deeply offended certain orthodox assholes (she was feisty as fuck, and more Catholic than the Council of Nicea, basically), did say at a few points that she had no thoughts. She wrote several books about this, lol.
I have experienced states in which words are inaccessible, for sure, as a bipolar peron in manias, where i could remember this thing, language, and could generate one letter at a time in a way that ended up spelling things--- almost like real slow channeling, in the dynamic. It is rare to be that far out, and only has happened in hospitals on locked wards, for the record. But It is possible to imagine getting better at that state and working from a place beyond words while still managing to communicate in language, as a sort of accumulation of single letter mioments. Like typing a text message on a cell phone, except slower still, and not knowing what any particular letter means until it can be read in words.
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me. In that state i retreat, either physically or inwardly, until the noise is distant enough to not literally hurt (urgent noise physically hurts, agonizingly, in the state). I have experienced someone saying "I love you", trying to break through, and it was only when i was literally far enough away that the words' impact had lessened because of the faintness that i could decipher the words in their intended meaning. Then I was able to introduce volume control, and gradually make my way back to quieter conversation with mutual recognition of tone and semantics and so forth. In less "successful" episodes of regression into no-language-noise-bearable, i have thrown chairs at people trying to get them to shut the fuck up and stop generating that awful din, and flung myself out the doors of moving cars. So my learning curve on this front is shallow, as surviving any given learning episode is kind of iffy,m and recovery times are long.
I doubt this is what you are talking about when you talk in words about being beyond verbal thought. But I do know that functioning without verbal thought does take place, and am prepared to consider that you somehow got good as fuck at it. I would be interested in your, uh, thoughts on this. Feel free to communicate musically.
love tim
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
i would tend to agree with you, Chris. I'm mainly trying to get at where Yuri is coming from here. I actually think this whole no-thought thing is a giant stupid red herring distraction from reality, lol. But here we are. It's a game with words, while we wait for reality to bring us home to a proper relationship. With reality. Without self. Fuck this thought shit.
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
It is an interesting topic. At the basic level, someone who experiences no "self" might say, "thoughts occur, but they are not mine, therefore "I" do not experience thoughts". This is sort of a dodge, as there ARE still thoughts. Deeper down, the day to day experience might be that there is no narrative that follows our actions (a point that is interesting as most people imagine their narration precedes their actions and IS who they are) and that the actions themselves arise spontaneously with no "doer" in a quiet mind. Is this what you are getting at with your math and dog visualization points?
I have honestly considered thoughts as those that include the verbal component, so I would say personally I have VERY few thoughts, but if we include the mental images, body sensations, or even emotions (even considering their "empty" nature) that arise then that isn't true. If we are broadening our definition, perhaps makes sense to drop even these appellations and consider them just phenomena in "mind" as we would call it in the traditions I have worked in? So then, there are ultimately no thoughts, or sense doors, skhandas, etc., just phenomena arising and passing.
Stirling Campbell:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
It is an interesting topic. At the basic level, someone who experiences no "self" might say, "thoughts occur, but they are not mine, therefore "I" do not experience thoughts". This is sort of a dodge, as there ARE still thoughts. Deeper down, the day to day experience might be that there is no narrative that follows our actions (a point that is interesting as most people imagine their narration precedes their actions and IS who they are) and that the actions themselves arise spontaneously with no "doer" in a quiet mind. Is this what you are getting at with your math and dog visualization points?
I have honestly considered thoughts as those that include the verbal component, so I would say personally I have VERY few thoughts, but if we include the mental images, body sensations, or even emotions (even considering their "empty" nature) that arise then that isn't true. If we are broadening our definition, perhaps makes sense to drop even these appellations and consider them just phenomena in "mind" as we would call it in the traditions I have worked in? So then, there are ultimately no thoughts, or sense doors, skhandas, etc., just phenomena arising and passing.
Amen. And I come at this also from the angle of seeing mind as the sixth sensory door. Receiving thoughts, we are receiving something from the world, and with lucidity and practice wecan begin to rwad those thoughts realistically, undertsanding in finer detail and discernment what they represent of the world, as we do with all other sense impressions.
Tim Farrington:
Stirling Campbell:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
It is an interesting topic. At the basic level, someone who experiences no "self" might say, "thoughts occur, but they are not mine, therefore "I" do not experience thoughts". This is sort of a dodge, as there ARE still thoughts. Deeper down, the day to day experience might be that there is no narrative that follows our actions (a point that is interesting as most people imagine their narration precedes their actions and IS who they are) and that the actions themselves arise spontaneously with no "doer" in a quiet mind. Is this what you are getting at with your math and dog visualization points?
I have honestly considered thoughts as those that include the verbal component, so I would say personally I have VERY few thoughts, but if we include the mental images, body sensations, or even emotions (even considering their "empty" nature) that arise then that isn't true. If we are broadening our definition, perhaps makes sense to drop even these appellations and consider them just phenomena in "mind" as we would call it in the traditions I have worked in? So then, there are ultimately no thoughts, or sense doors, skhandas, etc., just phenomena arising and passing.
Amen. And I come at this also from the angle of seeing mind as the sixth sensory door. Receiving thoughts, we are receiving something from the world, and with lucidity and practice wecan begin to rwad those thoughts realistically, undertsanding in finer detail and discernment what they represent of the world, as we do with all other sense impressions.
Mind is definitely merely a sixth sensory door.
In my meditation I try to think no thought but I also try to not attach to anything coming in through any of the six sensory doors. If I hear a dog bark or truck pass by, if I am honest it is likely to encourage me to return from wherever my mind has wandered, to attending to no thought, no sense. When my mine wanders, which has grown less over the years, it is usually the mental contents which distract me, rather than the birds, my leg hurting, or the smell of insense. So I have learned to sideline my mind as such by attending to sounds, or the sights of the inside of my eyeballs, the floaters floating by. Because in the nature of things mental contents arise and pass away, a few minutes of attending to my heartbeat or my eyes or ears or the feel of my legs and the breeze is enough for whatever I was thinking about to have dissiipated.
This works outside formal meditation as well. We are always attending to something (first nt), the trick is to not get stuck.
terry
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. Talking to yourself is what crazy people do. Having ideas is sane and wholesome. Verbalizing them is natural.
People who say they don't have thoughts are making a statement, not of fact, but to arouse a reaction. What is thought? The mental commentary of a ghost-like alter ego, which drops away as one becomes sane, or are thoughts also the expression of the ideas which communicate truth? It rather depends on what is verbalized, and to whom. To raise the subject, as you did with your conundrum, as to invite closer examination of the nature of thought, ideas, and verbalization, and thence the nature of reality.
In the context of dharma teachers and students, I would imagine a person who claims to not have thoughts is referring to the stream of judgments emitted by those mental contents identified with ego.
There are the thoughts of ego, which are delusion, and there are the thoughts of god, which are reality.
Who do you think you are? (Open your mouth and you are lost. Thwack!)
terry
terry:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. Talking to yourself is what crazy people do. Having ideas is sane and wholesome. Verbalizing them is natural.
People who say they don't have thoughts are making a statement, not of fact, but to arouse a reaction. What is thought? The mental commentary of a ghost-like alter ego, which drops away as one becomes sane, or are thoughts also the expression of the ideas which communicate truth? It rather depends on what is verbalized, and to whom. To raise the subject, as you did with your conundrum, as to invite closer examination of the nature of thought, ideas, and verbalization, and thence the nature of reality.
In the context of dharma teachers and students, I would imagine a person who claims to not have thoughts is referring to the stream of judgments emitted by those mental contents identified with ego.
There are the thoughts of ego, which are delusion, and there are the thoughts of god, which are reality.
Who do you think you are? (Open your mouth and you are lost. Thwack!)
terry
Thanks!
Let’s go back a bit here…
Premise #1: Human-to-human communication is an inherently lossy exercise. And by this statement I do mean to imply the following:
Communication. As in “human-to-human” communication. (“Pragmatics of Human Communication” by Paul Watzlawic. I do like a good reference other than some cheap slagging…Obvious reference to goat boy here). MCBT #2 folks should easily keep up (and offer yer usual awesome feedback) …
- Cognition [conceptualize some complex thought(s)]
- Lossy compression to some form of communication (Milo..and that is a great name, BTW…let’s start here: “i^2= -1”)
- Transmit the communications to other person.
- “Extract the files” (per yer favourite Microsoft command). Note: I hope there are others here who can actually “extract” this concept I’m trying to convey in the math listed above)
- Convey that you received the response
Let me give you a somewhat broader definition here: when you talk to someone else this process (act of comms) involves lossy compression for both the outgoing message as well as the received message:
- First you generate a highly complex concept. Could be many things (as possible examples) from “I’m not a threat” all the way down to “I like to paint my toe nails bright red”
- Then you (well, part of your brain/cognition) performs a lossy compression on this concept and translates into some form of communication. (words, typed crap, perhaps an equation or even…tik tok)
- You [verbalize, write, make some map, publish the video, etc]
- Other person then has “extraction engine” run on your message
- Other person’s “extraction engine” maps to their context
For those who disagree with Premise #1: please post your argument.
Premise #2: Maps are irrelevant. OK…A slightly larger concept but still.
I’ve always found Daniel’s response to my original email to be absolutely hilarious. Let’s go back to swimming.
“Witches float”.
This was “science” up until the mid 17th century (the 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1601, to December 31, 1700).
Swimming. Is it a “science”???”
Does success at swimming depend on your study(ies) of fundamental mythology(ies) of local [sea/water] god(esses} and/or your transgressions against them? How about your studies of their “morality/ethics”?
[Maybe you need more goats? And additional note to Milo (my total bad here…you ever read anything from the “Bobiverse”?...cause I love the Bobiverse…]
Here’s an exercise: go and talk to at least one person that you know very well who is great at swimming. I actually recommend going and talking to at least two (hey, you gots lots of time for this…).
Ask get these folks to explain the high performance aspects of “swimming” to you – preferably live. And ask them for their “swimming” maps…
Let’s see the “maps”. Please…post your maps for swimming here…I will definitely monitor.
Note: this has been an interesting exercise. With any ML approach you always need the "negative" data set...
My bad: had to edit to try to get my equation: "i^2=-1" to get to display...and I'm still not sure that it will dislplay here...
so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
The interface here is rather...archaic but sure...I can deal with that...might post a good book or two now that
Yuri K:
terry:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. Talking to yourself is what crazy people do. Having ideas is sane and wholesome. Verbalizing them is natural.
People who say they don't have thoughts are making a statement, not of fact, but to arouse a reaction. What is thought? The mental commentary of a ghost-like alter ego, which drops away as one becomes sane, or are thoughts also the expression of the ideas which communicate truth? It rather depends on what is verbalized, and to whom. To raise the subject, as you did with your conundrum, as to invite closer examination of the nature of thought, ideas, and verbalization, and thence the nature of reality.
In the context of dharma teachers and students, I would imagine a person who claims to not have thoughts is referring to the stream of judgments emitted by those mental contents identified with ego.
There are the thoughts of ego, which are delusion, and there are the thoughts of god, which are reality.
Who do you think you are? (Open your mouth and you are lost. Thwack!)
terry
Thanks!
Let’s go back a bit here…
Premise #1: Human-to-human communication is an inherently lossy exercise. And by this statement I do mean to imply the following:
Communication. As in “human-to-human” communication. (“Pragmatics of Human Communication” by Paul Watzlawic. I do like a good reference other than some cheap slagging…Obvious reference to goat boy here). MCBT #2 folks should easily keep up (and offer yer usual awesome feedback) …
- Cognition [conceptualize some complex thought(s)]
- Lossy compression to some form of communication (Milo..and that is a great name, BTW…let’s start here: “i^2= -1”)
- Transmit the communications to other person.
- “Extract the files” (per yer favourite Microsoft command). Note: I hope there are others here who can actually “extract” this concept I’m trying to convey in the math listed above)
- Convey that you received the response
Let me give you a somewhat broader definition here: when you talk to someone else this process (act of comms) involves lossy compression for both the outgoing message as well as the received message:
- First you generate a highly complex concept. Could be many things (as possible examples) from “I’m not a threat” all the way down to “I like to paint my toe nails bright red”
- Then you (well, part of your brain/cognition) performs a lossy compression on this concept and translates into some form of communication. (words, typed crap, perhaps an equation or even…tik tok)
- You [verbalize, write, make some map, publish the video, etc]
- Other person then has “extraction engine” run on your message
- Other person’s “extraction engine” maps to their context
For those who disagree with Premise #1: please post your argument.
Premise #2: Maps are irrelevant. OK…A slightly larger concept but still.
I’ve always found Daniel’s response to my original email to be absolutely hilarious. Let’s go back to swimming.
“Witches float”.
This was “science” up until the mid 17th century (the 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1601, to December 31, 1700).
Swimming. Is it a “science”???”
Does success at swimming depend on your study(ies) of fundamental mythology(ies) of local [sea/water] god(esses} and/or your transgressions against them? How about your studies of their “morality/ethics”?
[Maybe you need more goats? And additional note to Milo (my total bad here…you ever read anything from the “Bobiverse”?...cause I love the Bobiverse…]
Here’s an exercise: go and talk to at least one person that you know very well who is great at swimming. I actually recommend going and talking to at least two (hey, you gots lots of time for this…).
Ask get these folks to explain the high performance aspects of “swimming” to you – preferably live. And ask them for their “swimming” maps…
Let’s see the “maps”. Please…post your maps for swimming here…I will definitely monitor.
Note: this has been an interesting exercise. With any ML approach you always need the "negative" data set...
My bad: had to edit to try to get my equation: "i^2=-1" to get to display...and I'm still not sure that it will dislplay here...
so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
The interface here is rather...archaic but sure...I can deal with that...might post a good book or two now that
Geez...took me far too long to find a link to this...
koan...
CASE #42: Hui-ke Offers His ArmBodhidharma sat in a cave for nine years gazing at the wall. Hui-ke arrived to inquire about the dharma, but Bodhidharma refused to teach him. Finally, taking a knife, Hui-ke cut off his own arm and presented it as an offering to Bodhidharma, who agreed to become his teacher.
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/green-koans-case-42-hui-ke-offers-his-arm/
Rational???
Happy thoughts???
It's a test...(not quite Voight-Kampff but certainly close).
It's a test. Of the "extract engine" and the context...(thanks Franke Heile)
And imagine: they both can be "worked on" with a practice that does NOT INVOLVE SPEAKING TO PEOPLE.
As in: absolute silence at "monastery".
There are so many mechanisms here that should be plainly obvious - if you aren't busy trying to "pin" something down to a map.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
The map is absolutely not the territory...this was realized everywhere else a very long long time ago...
Yuri K:
Yuri K:
terry:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. Talking to yourself is what crazy people do. Having ideas is sane and wholesome. Verbalizing them is natural.
People who say they don't have thoughts are making a statement, not of fact, but to arouse a reaction. What is thought? The mental commentary of a ghost-like alter ego, which drops away as one becomes sane, or are thoughts also the expression of the ideas which communicate truth? It rather depends on what is verbalized, and to whom. To raise the subject, as you did with your conundrum, as to invite closer examination of the nature of thought, ideas, and verbalization, and thence the nature of reality.
In the context of dharma teachers and students, I would imagine a person who claims to not have thoughts is referring to the stream of judgments emitted by those mental contents identified with ego.
There are the thoughts of ego, which are delusion, and there are the thoughts of god, which are reality.
Who do you think you are? (Open your mouth and you are lost. Thwack!)
terry
Thanks!
Let’s go back a bit here…
Premise #1: Human-to-human communication is an inherently lossy exercise. And by this statement I do mean to imply the following:
Communication. As in “human-to-human” communication. (“Pragmatics of Human Communication” by Paul Watzlawic. I do like a good reference other than some cheap slagging…Obvious reference to goat boy here). MCBT #2 folks should easily keep up (and offer yer usual awesome feedback) …
- Cognition [conceptualize some complex thought(s)]
- Lossy compression to some form of communication (Milo..and that is a great name, BTW…let’s start here: “i^2= -1”)
- Transmit the communications to other person.
- “Extract the files” (per yer favourite Microsoft command). Note: I hope there are others here who can actually “extract” this concept I’m trying to convey in the math listed above)
- Convey that you received the response
Let me give you a somewhat broader definition here: when you talk to someone else this process (act of comms) involves lossy compression for both the outgoing message as well as the received message:
- First you generate a highly complex concept. Could be many things (as possible examples) from “I’m not a threat” all the way down to “I like to paint my toe nails bright red”
- Then you (well, part of your brain/cognition) performs a lossy compression on this concept and translates into some form of communication. (words, typed crap, perhaps an equation or even…tik tok)
- You [verbalize, write, make some map, publish the video, etc]
- Other person then has “extraction engine” run on your message
- Other person’s “extraction engine” maps to their context
For those who disagree with Premise #1: please post your argument.
Premise #2: Maps are irrelevant. OK…A slightly larger concept but still.
I’ve always found Daniel’s response to my original email to be absolutely hilarious. Let’s go back to swimming.
“Witches float”.
This was “science” up until the mid 17th century (the 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1601, to December 31, 1700).
Swimming. Is it a “science”???”
Does success at swimming depend on your study(ies) of fundamental mythology(ies) of local [sea/water] god(esses} and/or your transgressions against them? How about your studies of their “morality/ethics”?
[Maybe you need more goats? And additional note to Milo (my total bad here…you ever read anything from the “Bobiverse”?...cause I love the Bobiverse…]
Here’s an exercise: go and talk to at least one person that you know very well who is great at swimming. I actually recommend going and talking to at least two (hey, you gots lots of time for this…).
Ask get these folks to explain the high performance aspects of “swimming” to you – preferably live. And ask them for their “swimming” maps…
Let’s see the “maps”. Please…post your maps for swimming here…I will definitely monitor.
Note: this has been an interesting exercise. With any ML approach you always need the "negative" data set...
My bad: had to edit to try to get my equation: "i^2=-1" to get to display...and I'm still not sure that it will dislplay here...
so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
The interface here is rather...archaic but sure...I can deal with that...might post a good book or two now that
Geez...took me far too long to find a link to this...
koan...
CASE #42: Hui-ke Offers His ArmBodhidharma sat in a cave for nine years gazing at the wall. Hui-ke arrived to inquire about the dharma, but Bodhidharma refused to teach him. Finally, taking a knife, Hui-ke cut off his own arm and presented it as an offering to Bodhidharma, who agreed to become his teacher.
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/green-koans-case-42-hui-ke-offers-his-arm/
Rational???
Happy thoughts???
It's a test...(not quite Voight-Kampff but certainly close).
It's a test. Of the "extract engine" and the context...(thanks Franke Heile)
And imagine: they both can be "worked on" with a practice that does NOT INVOLVE SPEAKING TO PEOPLE.
As in: absolute silence at "monastery".
There are so many mechanisms here that should be plainly obvious - if you aren't busy trying to "pin" something down to a map.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
The map is absolutely not the territory...this was realized everywhere else a very long long time ago...
"After all, bodhidharma only had one disciple and he was a cripple."
~mumon
Yuri K:
terry:
Chris Marti:
To anyone who wishes to seriously address the "no thoughts" conundrum, like Sterling, Tim and Ni Nurta:
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think a lot of folks, possibly the majority, believe "thoughts" to be mental verbalizations. So when they say "I have no thoughts" they mean they don't have a language-like mental narrative going on. I believe this is what you are getting at, Tim, when you say:
My other experience of "no thoughts" has come in a few episodes of what i think of as regression to some kind of primal trauma condition, in which under extreme duress my mind stops understanding language as language and it all turns into flavors of nopise colored by the tone, often of fear and urgency, since in my extreme state at that point i am usually scaring the fuck out of whoever is trying to talk to me.
I don't define thoughts as mental narrative. I have a more comprehensive definition. Thoughts don't require mental verbalization. I can do math in my head without narrating the process - but that's thinking, IMHO. I can envision a dog walking across a street - and I can do that without narration. That's thinking, IMHO.
Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. Talking to yourself is what crazy people do. Having ideas is sane and wholesome. Verbalizing them is natural.
People who say they don't have thoughts are making a statement, not of fact, but to arouse a reaction. What is thought? The mental commentary of a ghost-like alter ego, which drops away as one becomes sane, or are thoughts also the expression of the ideas which communicate truth? It rather depends on what is verbalized, and to whom. To raise the subject, as you did with your conundrum, as to invite closer examination of the nature of thought, ideas, and verbalization, and thence the nature of reality.
In the context of dharma teachers and students, I would imagine a person who claims to not have thoughts is referring to the stream of judgments emitted by those mental contents identified with ego.
There are the thoughts of ego, which are delusion, and there are the thoughts of god, which are reality.
Who do you think you are? (Open your mouth and you are lost. Thwack!)
terry
Thanks!
Let’s go back a bit here…
Premise #1: Human-to-human communication is an inherently lossy exercise. And by this statement I do mean to imply the following:
Communication. As in “human-to-human” communication. (“Pragmatics of Human Communication” by Paul Watzlawic. I do like a good reference other than some cheap slagging…Obvious reference to goat boy here). MCBT #2 folks should easily keep up (and offer yer usual awesome feedback) …
- Cognition [conceptualize some complex thought(s)]
- Lossy compression to some form of communication (Milo..and that is a great name, BTW…let’s start here: “i^2= -1”)
- Transmit the communications to other person.
- “Extract the files” (per yer favourite Microsoft command). Note: I hope there are others here who can actually “extract” this concept I’m trying to convey in the math listed above)
- Convey that you received the response
Let me give you a somewhat broader definition here: when you talk to someone else this process (act of comms) involves lossy compression for both the outgoing message as well as the received message:
- First you generate a highly complex concept. Could be many things (as possible examples) from “I’m not a threat” all the way down to “I like to paint my toe nails bright red”
- Then you (well, part of your brain/cognition) performs a lossy compression on this concept and translates into some form of communication. (words, typed crap, perhaps an equation or even…tik tok)
- You [verbalize, write, make some map, publish the video, etc]
- Other person then has “extraction engine” run on your message
- Other person’s “extraction engine” maps to their context
For those who disagree with Premise #1: please post your argument.
Premise #2: Maps are irrelevant. OK…A slightly larger concept but still.
I’ve always found Daniel’s response to my original email to be absolutely hilarious. Let’s go back to swimming.
“Witches float”.
This was “science” up until the mid 17th century (the 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1601, to December 31, 1700).
Swimming. Is it a “science”???”
Does success at swimming depend on your study(ies) of fundamental mythology(ies) of local [sea/water] god(esses} and/or your transgressions against them? How about your studies of their “morality/ethics”?
[Maybe you need more goats? And additional note to Milo (my total bad here…you ever read anything from the “Bobiverse”?...cause I love the Bobiverse…]
Here’s an exercise: go and talk to at least one person that you know very well who is great at swimming. I actually recommend going and talking to at least two (hey, you gots lots of time for this…).
Ask get these folks to explain the high performance aspects of “swimming” to you – preferably live. And ask them for their “swimming” maps…
Let’s see the “maps”. Please…post your maps for swimming here…I will definitely monitor.
Note: this has been an interesting exercise. With any ML approach you always need the "negative" data set...
My bad: had to edit to try to get my equation: "i^2=-1" to get to display...and I'm still not sure that it will dislplay here...
so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
The interface here is rather...archaic but sure...I can deal with that...might post a good book or two now that
yo yuri,
Communication is heart to heart. What you are talking about is not communication, it is a reductive exercise which demolishes what it sets out to illuminate. The sufi metaphor would be a boy who pulls the wings off of a fly, the head, the legs, the thorax, and then looks at the pile of parts and wonders, where did the fly go?
terry
from "the way of chuang tzu" trans merton
DUKE HWAN AND THE WHEELWRIGHT
The world values books, and thinks that in so doing it is valuing Tao.
But books contain words only. And yet there is something else which
gives value to the books. Not the words only, nor the thought in the words,
but something else within the thought, swinging it in a certain direction
that words cannot apprehend. But it is the words themselves that the
world values when it commits them to books: and though the world values them,
these words are worthless as long as that which gives them value is not held in honor.
That which man apprehends by observation is only outward form and color,
name and noise: and he thinks that this will put him in possession of Tao.
Form and color, name and sound, do not reach to reality. That is why:
"He who knows does not say, he who says, does not know."
How then is the world going to know Tao through words?
Duke Hwan of Khi,
First in his dynasty,
Sat under his canopy
Reading his philosophy;
And Phien the wheelwright
\Vas out in the yard
Making a wheel.
Phien laid aside
Hammer and chisel,
Climbed the steps,
And said to Duke Hwan:
"May I ask you, Lord,
What is this you are
Reading?"
The Duke said:
"The experts. The authorities."
And Phien asked:
"Alive or dead?"
"Dead a long time."
"Then," said the wheelwright,
"You are reading only
The dirt they left behind."
Then the Duke replied:
"What do you know about it?
You are only a wheelwright.
You had better give me a good explanation
Or else you must die."
The wheelwright said:
"Let us look at the affair
From my point of view.
When I make wheels
If I go easy, they fall apart,
If I am too rough, they do not fit.
If I am neither too easy nor too violent
They come out right. The work is what
I want it to be.
You cannot put this into words:
You just have to know how it is.
I cannot even tell my own son exactly how it is done,
And my own son cannot learn it from me.
So here I am, seventy years old,
Still making wheels!
The men of old
Took all they really knew
With them to the grave.
And so, Lord, what you are reading there
Is only the dirt they left behind them."
[xiii. ro.]
I have no I, therefore, I have no thoughts.
This line of thinking is dodgy, IMHO. It's a kind of cheat, and the easy way out of the conundrum. I've talked to Gary Weber face to face and he doesn't mean this. He means, very literally, that there are no thoughts. He's not effing around with this, "There is no I so I have no thoughts" crap.
So there
Chris Marti:
I have no I, therefore, I have no thoughts.
This line of thinking is dodgy, IMHO. It's a kind of cheat, and the easy way out of the conundrum. I've talked to Gary Weber face to face and he doesn't mean this. He means, very literally, that there are no thoughts. He's not effing around with this, "There is no I so I have no thoughts" crap.
So there
This isn't thinking as such, it is logic. Without an I, there are no thoughts being had by an I.
It hardly matters what gary really thinks. (If) I literally think I have no thoughts; so what? Does that reduce the burden of your thoughts?
If I think I think, is that really any different than if I think that I don't think? Does thinking this way make gary weber - or john doe, or joe blow - more enlightened, or a better person? Does any personal claim to any spiritual "achievement" mean anything really, or is it just a con, a tease, or a plea to be loved? I leave out those rare individuals who make objective claims to achievement, such as the buddha, who was living proof.
If such statements aren't dialectical they are of no value whatever.
The resolution here is to realize that thought and thinker are not two. Think of it as self-canceling.
terry
If I think I think, is that really any different than if I think that I don't think? Does thinking this way make gary weber - or john doe, or joe blow - more enlightened, or a better person? Does any personal claim to any spiritual "achievement" mean anything really, or is it just a con, a tease, or a plea to be loved? I leave out those rare individuals who make objective claims to achievement, such as the buddha, who was living proof.
terry, I'm throwing a yellow flag. This is your second dodge, man. Play the game!
The responses here are very instructive and will be forming part of my book...
You seem to be driven by thoughts of anger and revenge, Yuri.
Chris Marti:
The responses here are very instructive and will be forming part of my book...
You seem to be driven by thoughts of anger and revenge, Yuri.
Cool...
Time is always a factor, Chris.
And less than four minutes is...awesome...
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Chris Marti:
The responses here are very instructive and will be forming part of my book...
You seem to be driven by thoughts of anger and revenge, Yuri.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Chris Marti:
The responses here are very instructive and will be forming part of my book...
You seem to be driven by thoughts of anger and revenge, Yuri.
Thanks, Linda.
You have done a great service posting both drugs and history here.