BEWARE: Heavy thinking ahead - Discussion
At first I thought this was way over my head but then realised that the answer is 42 ! 
Its easy. Hit me with something more complex! 
Its easy. Hit me with something more complex!
Angel Roberto Puente:
Do you mean 42 minutes of consideration or 42 years? 
The most important thing in all of this is "knowing where one's towel is"
... AND ... DON'T PANIC
This can lead to the effort on the part of the meditators to restrict conceptual explanations of their lived experience.
The Holy Grail of the DhO - a commonly understood (and used) language to communicate one's internal experience to others
Chris Marti:
This can lead to the effort on the part of the meditators to restrict conceptual explanations of their lived experience.
The Holy Grail of the DhO - a commonly understood (and used) language to communicate one's internal experience to others
"Proof-of-Concept (Building the First Bridges)
The working basis for the study’s design was the assumption
that long-term Buddhist-oriented mindfulness meditators would
be able to produce and hold, volitionally and on demand,
certain states pertaining to the self and its dissolution. This
assumption was partly based on a preliminary pilot study,
which reported two cases of altered states spontaneously
occurring during meditation in two proficient practitioners
(Berkovich-Ohana, 2015). These states of self dissolution are
not uncommon occurrence for insight meditation practitioners
and are considered the culmination of mindfulness-induced
stages of consciousness. They are characterized by little-to no
conceptual thought and a disintegration of the ordinary
subject-object intentional structure of consciousness, which is
usually centered on the embodied sense of self. In the Buddhist
tradition, these states are deemed highly valuable as they lead
to important insights and realizations: “This comprehension
of an object noticed, as being impermanent, painful, and without a self (impersonal) [....],
by means of simply noticing, without reflecting and reasoning, is called “knowledge by
comprehension through direct experience” (Sayadaw, 1964, pp.
10–11; Shulman, 2014).”
Chris Marti:
Skepticism is the root of sanity
I read this and had an image of Little Red Riding Hood saying to the wolf, "What deep skeptical roots you have! and the wolf replying, " The better to be sane with". Just my imagination!
Anyway, let me share some of my skepticism. I read the use of terms here, that have the intention to explain some kind of experience, but really say nothing except in imaginary visions like the one I had. I am perplexed to hear I turned on, or off, my default mode network. Let's define the term: The default mode network (sometimes called simply the default network refers to an interconnected group of brain structures that are hypothesized to be part of a functional system. The default network is a relatively recent concept, and because of this there is not yet a complete consensus on which brain regions should be included in a definition of it. Regardless, some structures that are generally included are the medialprefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and the inferior parietal lobule. A few of the other structures that may be considered part of the network are the lateral temporal cortex, hippocampal formation, and the precuneus." https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/know-your-brain-default-mode-network
Although there are some people on this forum that claim to enter the recesses of their brain, I am skeptical of this. Must be those roots. Whatever scientific data has been collected on the function of the default network has been obtained by neuroimaging in which the base state used, was the resting state. There is still no consensus on what all this means in terms of what produces more activity or less activity. My question is, How can anybody know if what they are doing is affecting or is mediated by the default network?
I think we can come up with a more precise way of describing lived experience. Just for the sake of sanity.
Hi Angel,
I know these references for having worked on them for my memoir and now starting a PhD project about contemplative practices using, probably, an interview method based on micophenomenology to get some info about the long term changes in the experience of advanced meditators from different traditions.
Michel Bitbol, who is a main co-author of the article you mention, is part of my PhD committee that i'm starting this year. I'm probably gonna train in Microphenomenology with C. Petitmengin, although she's retired now, so I'm not sure it will be her who does that.
(((((As you seem interested in all that, if you can read french, I suggest reading Bitbol's book "Does consciousness have an origin ?", it's not translated that I'm aware of. He draws parallels between phenomenological practice (épochè and transcendental reduction and contemplative practices including vipassana, shamatha, and open awareness stuff, and argues that it would be smart to consider them as forms of phenomenological reduction rather than the other way around.))))
Anyways, here's my take on this - hope it doesn't sound too blunt , nothing personal.
These methods don't add much, if anything, to actually meditating. Nor does neurophenomenology (Bitbol thinks neurophenomenology doesn't add anything to introspection. Neither does my adviso Jean VionDury who is a career neurophysiologist. That's from a fundamental, transcendental epistemological POV, we might say, as in : it's principally impossible, because of epistemological reasons, that studying the brain will add understanding about what happens in meditation, because meditation is not happening in the same domain as any conceptual construction ; "the small mind can't explain the big mind". Furthermore, even within the epistemological framework and assumptions of neurophysiology, fMRIs, as chris pointed out, are not precise tools at all...)
The reason people are inventing methods like "microphenomenology" or neurophenomenology to study metditation is, rather, to try to find ways to get these topics inside the range of mainstream science, which is dominated by certain epistemological values and rejects anything which cannot be objectified in scientific terms. Plus, technology is impressive and cool, etc.
Sad but true.
A lot of research, actually, most academic research, is based on where the money is. These days, you have 10 times more chance of getting some money to do research, if you plan to use MRI's and the like. Most professional researchers spend more time trying to get grants to do their work, than actually researching. ...
Try to get a grant from Mind and life to do research on contemplative practice : most are attributed to people doing neurophenomenology. Because, tada ! The founder of M&L is Varela, who invented the neurophenomenology thing, and managed to become influential and attract investors, prompting, ... etc. The first paper you mention was funded by M&L, actually.
It's all about the dough, my brother. And politics. Although the intentions are certainly honorable. But it's about the dough and the general landscape of academic research...
I mean... Most research on meditation is on MBSR. Mindfulness is JKZ's private brand. This guy is worth 45 millions last time I checked for having rebranded the Satipatthana sutta for his own benefit. Pretty clever ;)
Also, these guys are not awake, for the most part. I don't know about Bitbol, he seems very deep, but for having discussed over lunch with him, and for other reasons, I'm not sure he's as advanced as many people on this forum and beyond, although he's definitely brilliant and somehow illuminated.
So, I suspect that what daniel is trying to do with these projects, although I can't be sure, is just to help make all this mainstream, using the dominant worldviews and truth-values of the culture of the day, in a characteristically pragmatic fashion... I hope, at least
I suspect that, because these are precisely the reasons why I'm chosing these methods in my PhD project : (1) More chance of getting money if I use a method validated by the scientific community (it sounds more serious to the guys in charge) (2) This as a doorway to get the deeper end of these topics into the public arena.
But I have absolutely zero expectation that this adds much to actually practicing and reading the old texts and honestly, I think it's a pain in the ass that we have to go through this kind of thinking, but hey....
edit : The benefit, in my eyes, is pedagogical, ie., the wise have always said the same thing, but they always had to find new ways of communicating it with their peers. (!! inflated ego alert !!)
Also I don't have much hope that it will have a lot of impact... I think the important stuff happens outside these institutions... and that this will be the trend in the coming decades, more and more. For instance, the DhO is perhaps making more for the advancement of meditation than all the M&L research put together. I would bet my money on that, anyways
Last point, which I submit to your appreciation :
Could this be what the buddhas and jesuses did in their time : adapt and present their insights to fit the worldviews and values of the culture and time they were born in ?
What is the dominant worldview these days, at least for the minority of the world population which is not religious, but has all the academic capital, if we can put it that way ?
I leave this over to you for pondering.
Kind regards,
Olivier.
I know these references for having worked on them for my memoir and now starting a PhD project about contemplative practices using, probably, an interview method based on micophenomenology to get some info about the long term changes in the experience of advanced meditators from different traditions.
Michel Bitbol, who is a main co-author of the article you mention, is part of my PhD committee that i'm starting this year. I'm probably gonna train in Microphenomenology with C. Petitmengin, although she's retired now, so I'm not sure it will be her who does that.
(((((As you seem interested in all that, if you can read french, I suggest reading Bitbol's book "Does consciousness have an origin ?", it's not translated that I'm aware of. He draws parallels between phenomenological practice (épochè and transcendental reduction and contemplative practices including vipassana, shamatha, and open awareness stuff, and argues that it would be smart to consider them as forms of phenomenological reduction rather than the other way around.))))
Anyways, here's my take on this - hope it doesn't sound too blunt , nothing personal.
These methods don't add much, if anything, to actually meditating. Nor does neurophenomenology (Bitbol thinks neurophenomenology doesn't add anything to introspection. Neither does my adviso Jean VionDury who is a career neurophysiologist. That's from a fundamental, transcendental epistemological POV, we might say, as in : it's principally impossible, because of epistemological reasons, that studying the brain will add understanding about what happens in meditation, because meditation is not happening in the same domain as any conceptual construction ; "the small mind can't explain the big mind". Furthermore, even within the epistemological framework and assumptions of neurophysiology, fMRIs, as chris pointed out, are not precise tools at all...)
The reason people are inventing methods like "microphenomenology" or neurophenomenology to study metditation is, rather, to try to find ways to get these topics inside the range of mainstream science, which is dominated by certain epistemological values and rejects anything which cannot be objectified in scientific terms. Plus, technology is impressive and cool, etc.
Sad but true.
A lot of research, actually, most academic research, is based on where the money is. These days, you have 10 times more chance of getting some money to do research, if you plan to use MRI's and the like. Most professional researchers spend more time trying to get grants to do their work, than actually researching. ...
Try to get a grant from Mind and life to do research on contemplative practice : most are attributed to people doing neurophenomenology. Because, tada ! The founder of M&L is Varela, who invented the neurophenomenology thing, and managed to become influential and attract investors, prompting, ... etc. The first paper you mention was funded by M&L, actually.
It's all about the dough, my brother. And politics. Although the intentions are certainly honorable. But it's about the dough and the general landscape of academic research...
I mean... Most research on meditation is on MBSR. Mindfulness is JKZ's private brand. This guy is worth 45 millions last time I checked for having rebranded the Satipatthana sutta for his own benefit. Pretty clever ;)
Also, these guys are not awake, for the most part. I don't know about Bitbol, he seems very deep, but for having discussed over lunch with him, and for other reasons, I'm not sure he's as advanced as many people on this forum and beyond, although he's definitely brilliant and somehow illuminated.
So, I suspect that what daniel is trying to do with these projects, although I can't be sure, is just to help make all this mainstream, using the dominant worldviews and truth-values of the culture of the day, in a characteristically pragmatic fashion... I hope, at least
I suspect that, because these are precisely the reasons why I'm chosing these methods in my PhD project : (1) More chance of getting money if I use a method validated by the scientific community (it sounds more serious to the guys in charge
) (2) This as a doorway to get the deeper end of these topics into the public arena. But I have absolutely zero expectation that this adds much to actually practicing and reading the old texts and honestly, I think it's a pain in the ass that we have to go through this kind of thinking, but hey....
edit : The benefit, in my eyes, is pedagogical, ie., the wise have always said the same thing, but they always had to find new ways of communicating it with their peers. (!! inflated ego alert !!)
Also I don't have much hope that it will have a lot of impact... I think the important stuff happens outside these institutions... and that this will be the trend in the coming decades, more and more. For instance, the DhO is perhaps making more for the advancement of meditation than all the M&L research put together. I would bet my money on that, anyways
Last point, which I submit to your appreciation :
Could this be what the buddhas and jesuses did in their time : adapt and present their insights to fit the worldviews and values of the culture and time they were born in ?
What is the dominant worldview these days, at least for the minority of the world population which is not religious, but has all the academic capital, if we can put it that way ?
I leave this over to you for pondering.
Kind regards,
Olivier.
No competition being pursued on my side Angel, no worries. I try to not compete, so I will be blameless, as per the Tao te king, however I must humbly recognize that some argumentative tendencies remain in this heart and spirit of mine... And it's hard to not be competitive, because that's the societal incentive, isn't it ?
Pragmatically, I think the main effect papers like that have is to change the perception that the people who might read such papers have about meditation practice.
That's a worthy goal in my view. It's akin to a demystification process. Let me be a bit controversial : Do hardcore scientists deserve the demystification, though ? After all, Jesus said that we should not give pearls to pigs. Hehe.
I'm joking. But there are many ways to go about demystifying things, aren't there ? One exemple would be : becoming a true example for others through our actions in this world...
Write poetry or novels about our awakening process. Compose music from a truly alive place. Live a simple and dignified life.
In the end, practice is what matters, but I guess there could be benefits in precise discussion of phenomenology, like we're doing here. After all, that's the principle behind psychotherapy and a lot of philosophical practices.
It's funny, it makes me think of this thing I heard the Jesuist priest/head econonomist of the french agency for economic development Gaël Giraud recently say in an interview : "I am not transparent to myself, and I carry a life-desire within me, and I need others to help me know what that is and stay true to it." That, according to him, is the meaning of the vow of obedience.
Good luck with your endeavor. I share your interest. But as Chris said : language will never transmit experience. It points to something...
Cheers
Pragmatically, I think the main effect papers like that have is to change the perception that the people who might read such papers have about meditation practice.
That's a worthy goal in my view. It's akin to a demystification process. Let me be a bit controversial : Do hardcore scientists deserve the demystification, though ? After all, Jesus said that we should not give pearls to pigs. Hehe.
I'm joking
. But there are many ways to go about demystifying things, aren't there ? One exemple would be : becoming a true example for others through our actions in this world... Write poetry or novels about our awakening process. Compose music from a truly alive place. Live a simple and dignified life.
In the end, practice is what matters, but I guess there could be benefits in precise discussion of phenomenology, like we're doing here. After all, that's the principle behind psychotherapy and a lot of philosophical practices.
It's funny, it makes me think of this thing I heard the Jesuist priest/head econonomist of the french agency for economic development Gaël Giraud recently say in an interview : "I am not transparent to myself, and I carry a life-desire within me, and I need others to help me know what that is and stay true to it." That, according to him, is the meaning of the vow of obedience.
Good luck with your endeavor. I share your interest. But as Chris said : language will never transmit experience. It points to something...
Cheers
Nothing wrong with arguments. It's the spice of life! What would marriage be without arguments? 
Friendly ones of course. Like you mentioned, many times "we are not transparent to ourselves". I was just watching a conference by Bitbol. I think the problem of consciousness is a tough bone to chew on by science. Nothing can be said about something that has no characteristics. Language has its limitations obviously, but there is language the clarifies and language that obfuscates. F...Screw the scientists, this is for the practitioners. Of course, there are many ways of manifesting or demystifying things. All the ways you mention are actually extensions of practice. Acting in the marketplace is the proof of the pudding.
Friendly ones of course. Like you mentioned, many times "we are not transparent to ourselves". I was just watching a conference by Bitbol. I think the problem of consciousness is a tough bone to chew on by science. Nothing can be said about something that has no characteristics. Language has its limitations obviously, but there is language the clarifies and language that obfuscates. F...Screw the scientists, this is for the practitioners. Of course, there are many ways of manifesting or demystifying things. All the ways you mention are actually extensions of practice. Acting in the marketplace is the proof of the pudding.
... the incomprehensible experience of the annihilation of the self.
Angel, while you are probably using this language in a poetic fashion, the experience of this is that the self is never annihilated. I'd like to clarify this for those reading along as I really do believe accuracy in the way we portray these things matters. Self is a chimera, a sense of how things operate, even though we habitually reify it and assume it to be a permanent object and doer. My experience has been that the self eventually gets seen for what it is (just another impermanent object via meditation practice, not "me", and ultimately unsatisfactory) and as our practice pulls the curtains back over time the chimera of the self releases its hold in our experience. It remains, however, as a naturally occurring part of what we are, defanged, tamed, still a part of being human.
The tower of Babel that split human communication into many different languages. It relates to the discussion on phenomenology and language.
Really??? Is there, say, a book I can read that will give me more detail on Babel?
Chris Marti:
The tower of Babel that split human communication into many different languages. It relates to the discussion on phenomenology and language.
Really??? Is there, say, a book I can read that will give me more detail on Babel?
I do agree that practice is far more important than standardized language. I even think that standardized language might be an obstruction to the practice if it goes too far.
The strength of micro-phenomenology isn't standardized language, but closeness to the context.
Verbum...
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Olivier:
Verbum...
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Translation, please!
Olivier:
From the king james bible :
John, 1
9 That (the word) was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John, 1
9 That (the word) was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Ok. I know this well. The mystical Gospel. Uh, oh, big discussion if we open that can of worms.
Angel Roberto Puente:
Olivier:
Verbum...
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Translation, please!
Papa Che Dusko:
Angel Roberto Puente:
Olivier:
Verbum...
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Erat lux vera,quæ illuminat omnem hominemvenientem in hunc mundum.
In mundo erat,et mundus per ipsum factus est,et mundus eum non cognovit.
In propria venit,et sui eum non receperunt.
...
Tell me that's not rigpa
Translation, please!Papa Che, that third crazed prophet seems to have it down just right, to me!
There is confusion about where the little things have gone!Angel, re: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1, "
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")
Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθε, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.
NOW it's all Greek to you!
You're right that the "mystical Gospel" is a giant can of fucking worms. We're three languages in already and we haven't even considered the likelihood of an Aramaic plain-speech basis for the Jesus stories, and the fact that all the concepts need to be read in light of the biblical Hebrew that was the frame of reference for everyone at that point. I also use the basic rabbinical-exegetical rule of thumb in considering the meaning of this stuff: that every biblical verse has at least 70 different readings and meanings. Every worm in the can has 70 cans of worms too. And it's worms all the ways down.
Also, the Gospel of John is spectacularly polemical, in context. It comes at a point when the Jesus sects had diverged enough from the rabbinical Judaism that was emerging after the fall of Jerusalem during the rebellion against the Romans (circa 66-70 C.E.) as the basis for the next two thousand years of Jewish "orthodoxy", that the two sides were mutually defining themselves in explicit hostility. So the "mystical Gospel" has also been a rich source for anti-Semitism, and the fratricidal tragedy of the Jewish Jesus becoming the focus of a dominant "new" religion that, once it had become the religion of the Roman empire, used its power to persecute Jews in a horrific and systematic way. I read this stuff (and use it, mythologically) with a deep sense of grief at the appalling history and politics of scripture, the murderous nature of the co-opting of the language of the human hunger for "God" in the service of power and control. This is one of the things the contemporary Buddhists are trying for, of course: to introduce a spirituality stripped of the co-opted mythologies and sectarian histories that charge all human language in time. But I think the dynamics of co-opting the baby into the service of the bathwater will be with us as long as humans use language in historical cultures with differentiations of politcal and economic power.
Meanwhile, I think Olivier is right to suggest that the opening hymn of the gospel of John is very reminiscent of rigpa, lol. And I have gotten pretty deep in meditating on the Word and the Light, and the nature of embodiment.
Chris Marti:
Okay.
Here's the issue, at least in my mind: how much specificity and accuracy in langauge is required to help folks awaken? Is increased accuracy as measured by specific words being agreed on to mean very specific things, a boon to awakening? Why?
Here's the issue, at least in my mind: how much specificity and accuracy in langauge is required to help folks awaken? Is increased accuracy as measured by specific words being agreed on to mean very specific things, a boon to awakening? Why?
We can use the video of the panel Daniel participated in, as a jump-off point. It's still available
https://portal.theembodimentconference.org/sessions/panel-monk-and-scientist-discuss-meditation-d79de7
All the participants agree that meditation and science share one thing, they are both methods of investigation and both seek to be replicated. Accuracy in the language would then be absolutely necessary, not because it's required to help people awaken, but because replication would be impossible if there was no consensus on how you're talking about the experience. From the perspective of the individual practitioner, language is not a factor of awakening, it's only when you try to communicate that it becomes important. If you want to savor the experience privately all you have to do is keep your mouth shut.
In regards to science, Olivier has portrayed the politics involved. Daniel went further and commented on the "narrowing of the bandwidth" that science has done, limiting the studies to a selected view of meditation. If you ask why? you can see that it is tied to an effort in having a shared language and $$$. Daniel expressed the hope that different types of practice could be eventually included in the research. Again, I suppose a common language that applies to all types of meditation would have to be agreed upon before this can happen.
Linda commented that "The strength of micro-phenomenology isn't standardized language, but closeness to the context." According to the papers, this is correct. But we can add that, by staying close to the context a different language may surface and be agreed on. Maybe not standardized but more accurate. This should be started for the benefit of the practitioner and from the level of the practitioner. Because, really, how can knowing what part of the brain lights up when equanimity is practiced, help anybody? Except to include fantasy, disguised as science, in the logs.
I've tried to apply the principles of micro-phenomenology to really describe the start of a sitting. I'm not really skillful yet, but just applying the deep digging yields surprising results. Making an effort to avoid conceptualizing what I am doing and focusing on how it is done provides a different view. For example; I sit and adjust my posture, what do you do to adjust your posture? I try to feel my body., how do you feel your body?, etc. This line of questioning, I believe, provides information that will accelerate the benefits of practice because it allows fast replication of something that has worked well before. This is not done while sitting but afterward, when the sitting is evoked, brought back. This is what I see that can be developed.
" I think we often underestimate animals in that regard."
I think we do and many biologists would agree. I'm a beekeeper and this super organism is so sophisticated , going so far into detailed communication within a colony of 60.000 strong that even the renowned Jurgen Tautz bee scientist from Germany say "we are nowhere close in knowing the total bee communication".
Not just that they have democracy when voting where the swarm is to move but also all the intricate ways a scout bee literally explains to the swarm all details about a new hole it has found; its exact size and volume, size of the entrance, distance from the swarm and height from the ground and describing the terrain leading towards it.
Then many bees follow after the scout to do measurements and see if that really is so. Once they have reached a certain count of bees willing to go one way or the other way (another scout also found another home someplace) they vote and choose the one that has the majority vote! Democracy
Fascinating!
Edit; in case I didn't mention, the bees use waggle dance to communicate such details but they also do certain buzzing noises and even use the wax comb as a telephone line (body shaking during dances) and they encode maps on the "communication comb" which is a comb that's usually closest to the entrance (other bees can read this map to find the info on nectar and pollen sources)
Edit2; and then there is the pheromone communication too.
I think we do and many biologists would agree. I'm a beekeeper and this super organism is so sophisticated , going so far into detailed communication within a colony of 60.000 strong
that even the renowned Jurgen Tautz bee scientist from Germany say "we are nowhere close in knowing the total bee communication". Not just that they have democracy when voting where the swarm is to move but also all the intricate ways a scout bee literally explains to the swarm all details about a new hole it has found; its exact size and volume, size of the entrance, distance from the swarm and height from the ground and describing the terrain leading towards it.
Then many bees follow after the scout to do measurements and see if that really is so. Once they have reached a certain count of bees willing to go one way or the other way (another scout also found another home someplace) they vote and choose the one that has the majority vote! Democracy
Fascinating!
Edit; in case I didn't mention, the bees use waggle dance to communicate such details but they also do certain buzzing noises and even use the wax comb as a telephone line (body shaking during dances) and they encode maps on the "communication comb" which is a comb that's usually closest to the entrance (other bees can read this map to find the info on nectar and pollen sources)
Edit2; and then there is the pheromone communication too.
Papa Che Dusko:
" I think we often underestimate animals in that regard."
I think we do and many biologists would agree. I'm a beekeeper and this super organism is so sophisticated , going so far into detailed communication within a colony of 60.000 strong that even the renowned Jurgen Tautz bee scientist from Germany say "we are nowhere close in knowing the total bee communication".
Not just that they have democracy when voting where the swarm is to move but also all the intricate ways a scout bee literally explains to the swarm all details about a new hole it has found; its exact size and volume, size of the entrance, distance from the swarm and height from the ground and describing the terrain leading towards it.
Then many bees follow after the scout to do measurements and see if that really is so. Once they have reached a certain count of bees willing to go one way or the other way (another scout also found another home someplace) they vote and choose the one that has the majority vote! Democracy
Fascinating!
Edit; in case I didn't mention, the bees use waggle dance to communicate such details but they also do certain buzzing noises and even use the wax comb as a telephone line (body shaking during dances) and they encode maps on the "communication comb" which is a comb that's usually closest to the entrance (other bees can read this map to find the info on nectar and pollen sources)
Edit2; and then there is the pheromone communication too.
I think we do and many biologists would agree. I'm a beekeeper and this super organism is so sophisticated , going so far into detailed communication within a colony of 60.000 strong
that even the renowned Jurgen Tautz bee scientist from Germany say "we are nowhere close in knowing the total bee communication". Not just that they have democracy when voting where the swarm is to move but also all the intricate ways a scout bee literally explains to the swarm all details about a new hole it has found; its exact size and volume, size of the entrance, distance from the swarm and height from the ground and describing the terrain leading towards it.
Then many bees follow after the scout to do measurements and see if that really is so. Once they have reached a certain count of bees willing to go one way or the other way (another scout also found another home someplace) they vote and choose the one that has the majority vote! Democracy
Fascinating!
Edit; in case I didn't mention, the bees use waggle dance to communicate such details but they also do certain buzzing noises and even use the wax comb as a telephone line (body shaking during dances) and they encode maps on the "communication comb" which is a comb that's usually closest to the entrance (other bees can read this map to find the info on nectar and pollen sources)
Edit2; and then there is the pheromone communication too.
papa che, your waggle dancing has got my pheromones abuzz.
" (This is the moment for Papa Che to come in and suggest amid a flurry of smiley-faces that we all shut the fuck up and get back to the mat.) "
Actually I would much rather give each and every one of you a fine large shovel to help me out spread 14 kubic meters of gravel infront of my house All these Bodhisatvas around and I work alone!!!
Actually
I would much rather give each and every one of you a fine large shovel to help me out spread 14 kubic meters of gravel infront of my house All these Bodhisatvas around and I work alone!!!
Mahayana folks do tend to stop at no effort. My first practice was Zen. There's more underneath the hood, however, and knowing how the mind constructs our so-called "reality" is very useful for lots of reasons.
There are many roads to the top of the mountain.
So... me,too: not judging or recommending, just sharing
There are many roads to the top of the mountain.
So... me,too: not judging or recommending, just sharing
Starting with paintings on cave walls the sharing progressed into forms we are
familiar with in this age.
familiar with in this age.
How do you know that ?
Let me ask you something I've been asking myself lately. Does the "phenomenological" method make sense in a pre-scientific, i.e. pre-modern context ?
Before objective sciences took birth, everything was phenomenological, wasn't it ? Phenomenological just means "experienced". Everything is "experienced". Everything is "phenomenological". Except physics, and god, of course. Would they have needed the term/notion back then?
Only since the galilean revolution has our thinking evolved to the point that we have had to conceptualize something such as phenomenology - or so it seems to me. There have been many attempts since the 16th century to "go back to the source", ie root thinking in the fresh waters of experience again - Descartes, Hume, even Kant, Husserl, etc.
Cheers
ps : I agree with your final statements in a way, but it seems to me that this has already been completely figured out, in fact, that it's continually been re-figured out throughout human history. The issue was always, "How to get others to se this too?" What makes you think we can now do better ? Not to be pessimistic, but the problems have been just the same throughout history as the solutions: many people behave in explicitely destructive way, others seek domination, power, sex, etc., most people will rather follow the easy/appealing/but ultimately unsatisfying ways of mundane pursuit, or whatever someone convinces them is worth pursuing. And each new generation is born as ignorant as the previous, and the task has to be taken up anew each time. So, I don't know
Archeology Olivier, I'm not in the habit of pulling things out of my excretion hole. 
Even a simple search in Wikipedia will talk about this. There are studies of prehistoric rites of passage https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027841659790307X
http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/EvolOfReligionFinal.pdf?q=the-role-of-dreams-in-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind
that lead to this idea. Just in case, I'm not going to argue the validity of archeology.
What the phenomenological inquiry, in its present form as the micro-phenomenological interview, provides is a concise manner of reaching the how of experience. You are right in saying that everything( experienced by living creatures) is phenomenological. In prehistoric times, and now, the problem is how to transmit knowledge. How it's conceptualized isn't the point. Even without concepts, the prehistoric people went ahead in trying to pass on knowledge.
Meditative systems have always been widely used. Wilhelm Wundt, the father of experimental Psychology, used introspection as the basis of his studies. It's only when it's decided that introspective observations were not reliable that it goes underground. But still self-reports, under any name, are a meditative tool.
Exactly. Anybody can talk about their experiences. That is what goes on in this forum. But to be precise, factual, and to understand how they got to the experience is something else altogether. That's what science is aiming for, from the direction of the brain and the direction of the body-mind simultaneously. Trying to make a link between the two. Not only in meditation and mental health, but also in medical conditions. It's a brave new world, my friend.
Even a simple search in Wikipedia will talk about this. There are studies of prehistoric rites of passage https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027841659790307Xhttp://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/EvolOfReligionFinal.pdf?q=the-role-of-dreams-in-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind
that lead to this idea. Just in case, I'm not going to argue the validity of archeology.
What the phenomenological inquiry, in its present form as the micro-phenomenological interview, provides is a concise manner of reaching the how of experience. You are right in saying that everything( experienced by living creatures) is phenomenological. In prehistoric times, and now, the problem is how to transmit knowledge. How it's conceptualized isn't the point. Even without concepts, the prehistoric people went ahead in trying to pass on knowledge.
Meditative systems have always been widely used. Wilhelm Wundt, the father of experimental Psychology, used introspection as the basis of his studies. It's only when it's decided that introspective observations were not reliable that it goes underground. But still self-reports, under any name, are a meditative tool.
Chris
Maybe what Angel is getting at is "codified phenomenology." Detailed, accurate descriptions of what happens, which can then be classified in standard, meaningful ways to increase the level of understanding of a given phenomenon.
Maybe what Angel is getting at is "codified phenomenology." Detailed, accurate descriptions of what happens, which can then be classified in standard, meaningful ways to increase the level of understanding of a given phenomenon.
Exactly. Anybody can talk about their experiences. That is what goes on in this forum. But to be precise, factual, and to understand how they got to the experience is something else altogether. That's what science is aiming for, from the direction of the brain and the direction of the body-mind simultaneously. Trying to make a link between the two. Not only in meditation and mental health, but also in medical conditions. It's a brave new world, my friend.
Angel, don't get vexed, but how do you know "wall paintings progressed into the forms of transmission we have today"?
It seems like a very reductionist view of prehistoric man. I'm sure they were as evolved as we are if not more. Also, other forms of rituals and practices and culture which might have existed just didn't leave a trace. For all we know, prehistoric people knew how to build houses out of clay and wood, which of course 10s of thousands of years later have left no trace. How can you be sure the people who painted in caves weren't just the hobo parias of the time who didn't find anything better than caves to live in and drew drunk paintings in ?
It seems like a very reductionist view of prehistoric man. I'm sure they were as evolved as we are if not more. Also, other forms of rituals and practices and culture which might have existed just didn't leave a trace. For all we know, prehistoric people knew how to build houses out of clay and wood, which of course 10s of thousands of years later have left no trace. How can you be sure the people who painted in caves weren't just the hobo parias of the time who didn't find anything better than caves to live in and drew drunk paintings in ?
Angel, don't get vexed, but how do you know "wall paintings progressed into the forms of transmission we have today"?
I'm not vexed, I just couldn't find a better emoji. Again, not putting all my money on archeology, but they say, "The oldest documented evidence of the practice of meditation are wall arts in the Indian subcontinent from approximately 5,000 to 3,500 BCE, showing people seated in meditative postures with half-closed eyes". Who knows? maybe they were taking a shit instead of a sit. But this hippie is willing to allow reasonable doubt that they are right. Anyway, even if we forget the whole premise, what is being done now still stands.
I'm not vexed, I just couldn't find a better emoji.
Again, not putting all my money on archeology, but they say, "The oldest documented evidence of the practice of meditation are wall arts in the Indian subcontinent from approximately 5,000 to 3,500 BCE, showing people seated in meditative postures with half-closed eyes". Who knows? maybe they were taking a shit instead of a sit. But this hippie is willing to allow reasonable doubt that they are right. Anyway, even if we forget the whole premise, what is being done now still stands.
"The start of the Industrial society probably put the last nail in the coffin. Now it's up to the individual."
Divide and conquer! Only the powerful remain united. We are but puppets now. Only a few like Terry live free stranded on some islands (until the ice caps melt down).
I better go to sleep now as I'm to 9 to 5 yet again to keep the rich richer. Long live the Puppeteer!
Divide and conquer! Only the powerful remain united. We are but puppets now. Only a few like Terry live free stranded on some islands (until the ice caps melt down).
I better go to sleep now as I'm to 9 to 5 yet again to keep the rich richer. Long live the Puppeteer!
Reminds me of Terence McKenna... are you sure you're not the hippy? (I kid)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOXdeQPajJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOXdeQPajJk
J W:
Reminds me of Terence McKenna... are you sure you're not the hippy? (I kid)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOXdeQPajJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOXdeQPajJk
Well, there have been days when....... :p
edit : but seriously though, René Guénon makes a convincing case for the fact that it is very strange that we nowadays do not have any institutions devoted to the development of higher knowledge (Jñana, what insight practice is all about), nor even devotional practice (Bakhti) ; we are left, in this division in three realms of action, with measly Karma ! How lame ! The rat race ! We rajasic and satvic people are relegated to the overgrounds, when there were times when people like us would be fed for free by regular bystanders just out of respect for what we would be engaged with....
Edit 2 : just measure the difference, we are now fighting for this stuff to even be acknowledged as something more than superstition. Are we not ?
edit : but seriously though, René Guénon makes a convincing case for the fact that it is very strange that we nowadays do not have any institutions devoted to the development of higher knowledge (Jñana, what insight practice is all about), nor even devotional practice (Bakhti) ; we are left, in this division in three realms of action, with measly Karma ! How lame ! The rat race ! We rajasic and satvic people are relegated to the overgrounds, when there were times when people like us would be fed for free by regular bystanders just out of respect for what we would be engaged with....
Edit 2 : just measure the difference, we are now fighting for this stuff to even be acknowledged as something more than superstition. Are we not ?
I wonder about the relationship between 'assumptions' and 'ignorance' or 'delusion/dukkha'.
We can have correct or incorrect assumptions, but the word implies that we don't actually 'know'. In that sense, even if the assumption turns out to be correct, it's not 'knowing'.
So it seems to me we may be able to apply the Noble Eightfold Path/Four noble truths to the concept of assumptions, and say that in some sense the 'goal' (or perhaps, a result) of practice is to better understand assumptions for what they are, in the same sense that we say we practice to better understand suffering for what it is, which is done through insight.
(I would say 'lessen' our assumptions, but that's maybe not the best word choice, though I would say practically speaking, 'lessen' is not a bad word).
In any case, I agree with both Angel and Chris here. Don't worry, be happy
And TGIF!
We can have correct or incorrect assumptions, but the word implies that we don't actually 'know'. In that sense, even if the assumption turns out to be correct, it's not 'knowing'.
So it seems to me we may be able to apply the Noble Eightfold Path/Four noble truths to the concept of assumptions, and say that in some sense the 'goal' (or perhaps, a result) of practice is to better understand assumptions for what they are, in the same sense that we say we practice to better understand suffering for what it is, which is done through insight.
(I would say 'lessen' our assumptions, but that's maybe not the best word choice, though I would say practically speaking, 'lessen' is not a bad word).
In any case, I agree with both Angel and Chris here. Don't worry, be happy
And TGIF!
Martin -
It's great to be right about things, and it's great not to get attached to being right about things. Isn't the point of this to not get caught up in being right? Or being wrong? Isn't the point of all this practice to be happy... regardless?
My day job involves economic forecasting and yes, there are pretty clear similarities between how one should think about using an economic projection and how we humans should think about how our minds work. I think these are sorta similar modeling issues. One thing you learn quickly in economic or financial modeling is how "acts of god" or instances of "force majeure" can upend even the best models. This has happened twice now in my career: the Great Financial Recession in 2008 and the current COVID-19 Pandemic. The same kind of thing applies to the mind's models of reality. There will always be huge surprises - totally unanticipated occurrences.
We use Monte Carlo simiulations in forecasting, which is basically running thousands, even millions, of iterations of a model under different conditions and assumptions, to see what could happen. My guess is that the parallel process the mind uses is what we call imagination, or maybe even fret, worry, and anxiety.
Of course, in both the case of forecasting and imigining, we are bound mostly to what we know, to our past, for ideas about what could go right or wrong. Then the universe does its thing and shocks us with something totally unforseen and unforseeable.
Another thing I have been noticing about assumptions recently is that it sucks to be right. If my mind figures something out regarding a complex issue, such as politics, so that all the pieces of information that I have line up perfectly, and I see the answer that is right, it is clear to me that I am just going to end up clinging to it, and hating or pitting people who have not had the privilege of seeing it, and getting defensive when information that contradicts my brilliance shows up. In terms of happiness, I'm better off not figuring it out. My current policy, when the coin drops or the light bulb goes on, is to try not to get sucked into it.
It's great to be right about things, and it's great not to get attached to being right about things. Isn't the point of this to not get caught up in being right? Or being wrong? Isn't the point of all this practice to be happy... regardless?
My thoughts are that it is unfathomably coincidental that you should say this. Only this morning I heard the same thing said in a talk on investing. The fellow said that, what you should learn from being surprised (by something happening in the market) is not that you need to update your models, but that the world is surprising, and one should learn to plan in a way that can withstand surprises, rather than try to model in a way that eliminates surprises. I thought, wow, that really speaks to what I seeing going on under the general heading of being alive and watching what is going on. And then here you are, actually saying it in that context.
My day job involves economic forecasting and yes, there are pretty clear similarities between how one should think about using an economic projection and how we humans should think about how our minds work. I think these are sorta similar modeling issues. One thing you learn quickly in economic or financial modeling is how "acts of god" or instances of "force majeure" can upend even the best models. This has happened twice now in my career: the Great Financial Recession in 2008 and the current COVID-19 Pandemic. The same kind of thing applies to the mind's models of reality. There will always be huge surprises - totally unanticipated occurrences.
We use Monte Carlo simiulations in forecasting, which is basically running thousands, even millions, of iterations of a model under different conditions and assumptions, to see what could happen. My guess is that the parallel process the mind uses is what we call imagination, or maybe even fret, worry, and anxiety.
Of course, in both the case of forecasting and imigining, we are bound mostly to what we know, to our past, for ideas about what could go right or wrong. Then the universe does its thing and shocks us with something totally unforseen and unforseeable.
