How can I play into the hands of my Maker - Sunday Morning

I think this is very beautiful to read, however I agree with most of the criticism you have recieved. I am sure if youtook it then you could turn this into something more wonderful. Goodluck!

Really? I find that online debates are by and large superior to real life dialogues. One of the main advantages to online debates is that you have time to think carefully about what the other person has written, rather than having to give an on the spot response, as you would in a verbal discussion. The point-by-point parsing also makes it easier to identify differences in premises that might be obscured in a less careful discussion. Not to mention that you can actually go point-by-point, instead of wandering off on a discussion of one point to the exclusion of all others. There is also less room for evasion in such a discussion, as no one can deny their previous comments (though they may of course change the position they were taking, if they wish) and the chain of logic can be thoroughly vetted. What advantages, then, do you find that real world dialogues hold over online debates?

In real-time face-to-face conversations, neither person (unless they are very rude) can go on and on. There is less possibility of misunderstanding, as verbal inflections help to make clear when (e.g.) a person is saying something sarcastic lightly rather than nastily. There is also the opportunity to check in to make sure you've understood correctly as the person is speaking.

In face-to-face dialogue, again unless one party is impossibly rude, there can be a cooperative effort to seek consensus, to start from common ground and to uncover and then explore the roots of the disagreement, determining whether these are questions of fact that can be resolved by research or questions of values, in which case it may be necessary to agree to disagree. This is, in theory, also possible in online debates. However, because of the disconnected nature of online communication, what tends to happen is that disagreements are exacerbated rather than resolved. Online debaters tend, as you did with my rather mild comment to Rajiv, to engage in "offensive listening," reading for disagreement rather than agreement and skewing others words to fit preexisting conceptions. It exhausts me to think about what it would take to simply explain what I really did mean, quite apart from the labor of then justifying it in words that could not possibly be misunderstood by a hostile reader.

If I'm going to take the trouble to do what I'd need to do to answer your challenges above, quite frankly I'd prefer to write an article or blog post for publication rather than putting all of that effort into writing something for a single reader. And, indeed, I have written extensively about those issues, having thought carefully and -- yes -- logically in the process. Hence my disinclination to spend hours constructing forum posts that might be read by, at best, a handful of people.

I wasn't reading for disagreement. I would have had exactly the same questions had you said the same thing in a face-to-face conversation with me.

Nor was I skewing your words. I was instead attempting to figure out what you meant by them. You said that "most people in the United States are concerned with personal gain rather than healthy communities. If only people were concerned with that goal, we might make some progress on our more vexing problems, such as inequality and violence."

This reads like a passage from a textbook on formal logic, in which the goal is to unpack premises and identify errors in reasoning. The comment makes no sense at all unless you define what you mean by "healthy communities," "inequality," and "violence." You would probably also need to bring along an entire set of ideological scaffolding to justify your implied views about "personal gain." And once you have your definitions, a breakdown of your premises would seem to quickly reveal severe logical problems in your chain of reasoning, as for example your implicit assumption that concern for personal gain and concern for healthy communities are mutually exclusive.

As for your comment being mild, I wonder if the consequences of encouraging people to believe that pursuing their own happiness is unhealthy are really so benign.

Still, you are right that these sorts of discussions do take up an inordinate amount of time, so no one can blame you if you have better things to do.

I hadn't responded yet to this -

We take this as our hypothesis, that everything happening with us is nature following some signature pattern written after our own deeds. These patterns are discernible in our faces.

Of the practice, the first stage has five principles: non-violence, not-stealing and truthfulness are acceptable generally; two others, sexual restraint and non covetousness, have varying emphasis in different parts of the world.

As we make these principles dominant in our lives, our circumstances are affected as well. Greed, lust, anger, deceit show themselves on our faces and our life follows accordingly.

The next stage of our practice is a deeper cleaning of these negativities. Living in cleanliness, the first of these principles, we feel the effect on our minds as well, soothing and invigorating.

More subtle is the effect of being accepting of difficult situations, at all times they may occur. Of controlling any agitation and reacting only with patience.

Building fortitude and tolerance has the effect of smoothening our minds further still; such as we notice in those who have stoically undergone hardships. Bearing physical pain has a ring of sadism in it, but if seperated in thought from sensuality, which is its purport in sadism, the effect is positive.

Next is concerning matters such as we are talking of now. We may not see an answer to our quest, yet the struggle is rewarding and feels meaningful like any other effort. This effort is the cause for positive changes to our personality.

Lastly is the principle of accepting the fathomless-ness of the universe, and its mysterious ways of responding to our entrities, whenever we make them. The principle encourages us to surrender to this idea that the universe responds to us. As though holding back on contrary thoughts, rational as they are, will cause that to happen.

Rajiv, I am glad to see this post from you. I was just wondering where you had gone.

Simone, you're awesome. Thanks for posting these insights...

Several weeks ago you recommended The Tao of Physics by Capra. I got it, and I'm so happy to be reading it! I hesitated, because it is so old that I thought it might be outdated, but actually, many of the discoveries in atomic and quantum physics that were made in the first half of the 20th century are HUGE steps toward reconciling science with the enlightenment traditions.

With regard to what you wrote about the existentialist idea that "you are what you do"... it made me think of this: "In modern physics, the universe is experienced as a dynamic, inseparable whole which always includes the observer."-- Capra.

Einstein's relativity theory does not just mean that time is relative to space... apparently, all phenomena are relative to the being doing the experiencing!!

Anyway, I am really enjoying the Capra book, and with gratitude I recommend to you the obscure book that became more important for me than all the others (and there are many others):

Qigong Meditation: Embryonic Breathing by Yang Jwing Ming.

Dr. Yang is a modern scientist applying the principles of physics to understand the electricity involved in acupuncture and its role in creating thee crazy experience called enlightenment. His book affected me so deeply that I actually got an apartment near boston 3 years ago in order to become his student, and I'm still here!

The body is like a battery. If you increase the body's capacity to store and circulate bioelectricity (by running a current through it often, through qigong and tai chi practice, etc)... you can increase the electrical conductivity in the space between the two hemispheres of the brain (sometimes called the 3rd eye), you can perhaps become receptive to signals that you were never able to pick up prior to your practice.

In Chinese medicine, it's known that energy follows the attention. That is why energy flows to the points that have needles stuck in them. Also, energy goes whereever you are looking. That's why it feels good to have someone pay attention to you -- you are getting energy! Based on that, it is easy to understand why meditation can physically change the body; meditation is one of the few activities that puts the attention INSIDE the body, thus drawing electricity into the body instead of constantly pouring it out.

Oh, how significant it is to know how to collect energy and store it, to know that the body is a battery. For example: Daoists not only brush their teeth, but they click their teeth together to stimulate the gums.. because they know that stimulation is crucial. And check out this 90 year old guy who could kick my butt:

People's hair gets grey because of an energy shortage.

Children breath from the low abdomen, teens from mid abdomen, adults from the upper abdomen, and older adults from the chest. Shallow breathing is part of the reason the body gets dysfunctional.

So, Qigong (energy work) is crucial. People just don't know about it!!!!

By meditating, you might be able to increase the electrical conductivity at the third eye, and activate more brain cells, etc. So... I have tons of confidence in the possibility of something called "enlightenment."

Wanted to let you know...

:-)

Einstein hated that misinterpretation of his theory.


Electroshock therapy as a treatment for graying hair. I like it. :-)

The ideas you mention actually sound sort of interesting. I would like to closely read the texts you mention -- they sound sort of pseudoscientificky, but that could simply be the fact that you are importing new age terms and associating them with scientific ones.

Just moved to India. I've always wondered this about myself and others.. it is so important to us to feel we are knowledgable about the really important things. Which is surprising because, on the other hand, I know that I am looking for answers to many questions. Yet I seem to have difficulty in saying I know little.

I am sitting on a fence at this moment. On one side is the world, familiar now, but left behind. And on the other is this unfamiliar one, which is really mine !

I am thinking of a glass like door, toughened, which I have opened and it is swinging back. I am turning and waving to you, my head is slightly bowed as I try to catch the expression on your faces; but much is mixed in the reflections on the glass walls as I walk away rolling my bag along. I am wearing a long coat and a hat, and I never ever wore these .. they were symbols in my mind of the world you belong to, the one I wanted to hate; because your forefathers had hurt mine. But you treated me gently and I find it hard to show you the anger in my eyes. Or now, that I have come to care for you like friends.

I'll turn and face the dust and heat now, and I'll keep writing ... this side of the glass!

Oh, yes, please do keep writing. I'll keep reading, and I know I'm not the only one. Why not start a new thread with your reflections from India?

Yes, you have great potential as a writer, and should definitely keep on recording your thoughts. Starting new reflections in new threads would probably be a good idea, though -- some of the existing threads are getting a bit long, so it would help with organization.