beyonder

Forty-One Good and bad, self and others, life and death: Why affirm these concepts? Why deny them? To do either is to exercise the mind, and the integral being knows that the manipulations of the mind are dreams, delusions, and shadows. Hold one idea, and another competes with it. Soon the two will be in conflict with a third, and in time your life is all chatter and contradiction. Seek instead to keep your mind undivided. Dissolve all ideas into the Tao. -Hua Hu Ching

Does that really matter? I could answer, though: "In the Grand Beginning (of all things) there was nothing in all the vacancy of space; there was nothing that could be named. It was in this state that there arose the first existence - the first existence, but still without bodily shape. From this things could then be produced, (receiving) what we call their proper character. That which had no bodily shape was divided; and then without intermission there was what we call the process of conferring. (The two processes) continuing in operation, things were produced. As things were completed, there were produced the distinguishing lines of each, which we call the bodily shape. That shape was the body preserving in it the spirit, and each had its peculiar manifestation, which we call its Nature. When the Nature has been cultivated, it returns to its proper character; and when that has been fully reached, there is the same condition as at the Beginning. That sameness is pure vacancy, and the vacancy is great. It is like the closing of the beak and silencing the singing (of a bird). That closing and silencing is like the union of heaven and earth (at the beginning). The union, effected, as it is, might seem to indicate stupidity or darkness, but it is what we call the 'mysterious quality' (existing at the beginning); it is the same as the Grand Submission (to the Natural Course)." -Zhuangzi http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/heaven-and-earth Or: "The unconscious is an unglimpsable completeness of all subliminal psychic factors, a "total exhibition" of potential nature. It constitutes the entire disposition from which consciousness takes fragments from time to time. Now if consciousness is emptied as far as possible of its contents, the latter will fall into a state (at least a transitory state) of unconsciousness. This displacement ensues as a rule in Zen through the fact of the energy of the conscious being withdrawn from the contents and transferred either to the conception of emptiness or to the koan. As the two last-named must be stable, the succession of images is also abolished, and with it the energy which maintains the kinetic of the conscious. The amount of energy that is saved goes over to the unconscious, and reinforces its natural supply up to a certain maximum. This increases the readiness of the unconscious contents to break through to the conscious. Since the emptying and the closing down of the conscious is no easy matter, a special training and an indefinitely long period of time is necessary to produce that maximum of tension which leads to the final break-through of unconscious contents into the conscious." -CG Jung, foreword to "Introduction to Zen Buddhism" (Grove Press, New York, 1964), p. 22 But because the eventual goal is an unobstructed mind, such notions can potentially be problematic for the person trying to achieve that state: "Forty-Four This is the nature of the unenlightened mind: The sense organs, which are limited in scope and ability, randomly gather information. This partial information is arranged into judgments, which are based on previous judgments, which are usually based on someone else's foolish ideas. These false concepts and ideas are then stored in a highly selective memory system. Distortion upon distortion: the mental energy flows constantly through contorted and inappropriate channels, and the more one uses the mind, the more confused one becomes. To eliminate the vexation ofthe mind, it doesn't help to do something; this only reinforces the mind's mechanics. Dissolving the mind is instead a matter of non-doing: Simply avoid becoming attached to what you see and think. Relinquish the notion that you are separated from the all-knowing mind of the universe. Then you can recover your original pure insight and see through all illusions. Knowing nothing, you will be aware of everything. Remember: because clarity and enlightenment are within your own nature, they are regained without moving an inch. Forty-Five If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will rail into place. This is true because the mind is the governing aspect of a human life. If the river flows clearly and cleanly through the proper channel, all will be well along its banks. The Integral Way depends on decreasing, not increasing: To correct your mind, rely on not doing. Stop thinking and clinging to complications; keep your mind detached and whole. Eliminate mental muddiness and obscurity; keep your mind crystal clear. Avoid daydreaming and allow your pure original insight to emerge. Quiet your emotions and abide in serenity. Don't go crazy with the worship of idols, images, and ideas; this is like putting a new head on top of the head you already have. Remember: if you can cease all restless activity, your integral nature will appear." -Hua Hu Ching Again, just some thoughts.

Dude. I'm Chinese. I don't eat fortune cookies.

"The thirty spokes unite in the one nave; but it is on the empty space (for the axle), that the use of the wheel depends. Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their empty hollowness, that their use depends. The door and windows are cut out (from the walls) to form an apartment; but it is on the empty space (within), that its use depends. Therefore, what has a (positive) existence serves for profitable adaptation, and what has not that for (actual) usefulness." -Laozi, "Daodejing", chapter 11 http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing11.php I don't think wu wei is an intellectual concept. Rather, it's a mental state: "Whatever you do as your Way, if you are obsessed with it, or think that this alone is of importance to you, then it is not the Way. It is when you have nothing in your chest that you are on the Way. Whatever you do, if you do it with nothing in your chest, it works out easily. This is like the way everything reflects clearly in a mirror precisely because of the formless clarity of the mirror's reflectiveness. The heart of those on the Way is like a mirror, empty and clear, being mindless and yet not failing to accomplish anything. This is the "normal mind". Someone who does everything with this normal mind is called an adept." -Yagyu Munenori, Hereditary Book on the Art of War How does one attain a normal mind? Well: "THE RIGHT MIND AND THE CONFUSED MIND The Right Mind is the mind that does not remain in one place. It is the mind that stretches throughout the entire body and self. The Confused Mind is the mind that, thinking something over, congeals in one place. When the Right Mind congeals and settles in one place, it becomes what is called the Confused Mind. When the Right Mind is lost, it is lacking in function here and there. For this reason, it is important not to lose it. In not remaining in one place, the Right Mind is like water. The Confused Mind is like ice, and ice is unable to wash hands or head. When ice is melted, it becomes water and flows everywhere, and it can wash the hands, the feet or anything else. If the mind congeals in one place and remains with one thing, it is like frozen water and is unable to be used freely: ice that can wash neither hands nor feet. When the mind is melted and is used like water, extending throughout the body, it can be sent wherever one wants to send it. This is the Right Mind. THE MIND OF THE EXISTENT MIND AND THE MIND OF NO-MIND The Existent Mind is the same as the Confused Mind and is literally read as the "mind that exists." It is the mind that thinks in one direction, regardless of subject. When there is an object of thought in the mind, discrimination and thoughts will arise. Thus it is known as the Existent Mind. The No-Mind is the same as the Right Mind. It neither congeals nor fixes itself in one place. It is called No-Mind when the mind has neither discrimination nor thought but wanders about the entire body and extends throughout the entire self. The No-Mind is placed nowhere. Yet it is not like wood or stone. Where there is no stopping place, it is called No-Mind. When it stops, there is something in the mind. When there is nothing in the mind, it is called the mind of No-Mind. It is also called No-Mind-No-Thought. When this No-Mind has been well developed, the mind does not stop with one thing nor does it lack anyone thing. It is like water overflowing and exists within itself. It appears appropriately when facing a time of need. The mind that becomes fixed and stops in one place does not function freely. Similarly, the wheels of a cart go around because they are not rigidly in place. If they were to stick tight, they would not go around. The mind is also something that does not function if it becomes attached to a single situation. If there is some thought within the mind, though you listen to the words spoken by another, you will not really be able to hear him. This is because your mind has stopped with your own thoughts. If your mind leans in the direction of these thoughts, though you listen, you will not hear; and though you look, you will not see. This is because there is something in your mind. What is there is thought. If you are able to remove this thing that is there, your mind will become No-Mind, it will function when needed, and it will be appropriate to its use. The mind that thinks about removing what is within it will by the very act be occupied. If one will not think about it, the mind will remove these thoughts by itself and of itself become No-Mind. If one always approaches his mind in this way, at a later date it will suddenly come to this condition by itself. If one tries to achieve this suddenly, it will never get there. An old poem says: To think, "I will not think"-- This, too, is something in one's thoughts. Simply do not think About not thinking at all." -Takuan Soho, "The Unfettered Mind" http://www.american-buddha.com/unfettered.myster.htm Just some thoughts.

-Classical scepticism (academic and pyrrhonian). -Classical cynicism. -Jungian psychology. -Gestalt psychology. -Phenomenology. -Daoism.

http://mycorrhizas.info/

The potting mix I made wasn't up to scratch. Too much vermicompost, which created a spongelike structure. And since maples hate wet feet... The soil my other maples grow in is much more aerated, though. The way I got my bamboo growing well, was through improving the soil life. I did this by adding grains of Bactoforce by Home and Garden, which are bioactive grains containing bacteria and funghi (mycorhizza). Not sure if that specific brand is available in the States, but you shouldn't have much trouble getting similar stuff from other brands.

"Sleep" by Andy Warhol. I wouldn't go watch it, though.

One of my japanese maples died... >< The other 4 are growing as lush as ever, though. This year, I got some black bamboo from my grandma, which is also coming along nicely.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the apprehending mind. I was talking about how all my direct experiences, which are constituted out of bodily, sensory and thought phenomena, are all generated by my brain and are all in some way "mental" in structure, and as such, part of my psyche (mind). What I'm saying is that my body, sensory perceptions and thoughts are all both res extensa and res cogitans.

Why not give up on that dualistic framework of shame/pride? Thinking is alot easier when you're not tied to friggin' poles.

Let's consider some particle physics, neurology and biology first. Our bodies and organs are made out of proteins, which are chained and folded amino acid residues. These are considered macromolecules. Both the sequencing of aminoacids and the subsequent folding into a protein is coded by DNA. These amino acids are themselves molecules, and as such, consist of various layers of complexity, as shown by particle physics; molecules consist of atoms, which consist of protons, neutrons (protons and neutrons are nucleïc particles) and electrons. The neutron is made out of two down quarks and one up quark, the proton is made out of two up, one down. One of our organs is the brain, which consists of grey matter (soma's, axons, dendrites) and white matter (glial cell and myalin sheaths). Next to the previous levels of organisation, the brain has a few, which are specific to it; namely neurons, neural networks and functional regions. So, to run down the layers of complexity, discussd so far: quark nucleus atom molecule macromolecule organ body With, on the organ level, the brain, which contains its own levels of organisation: Neuron Neural network Region Brain Mind Out of this, it's already possible to provide a possible definition; minds are an emergent structure consisting and existing on various levels of complexity, at the same time. As such, minds are psychophysical entities, existing on all the levels I previously discussed, simultaneously. On to the phenomenological side. Let's pose the question anew. What is the mind, to itself? This question bares validity from an emergentist standpoint, since the mind in itself constitutes it's own level of organisation, and as such, should be analysed accordingly. The first thing to note is the primacy of experience. The way I experience anything is first and foremost, through my mind. My mind isn't just my thoughts, though they are a part of my being. I perceive the world as sense data in my mind too since those sense data are generated through the interaction of the world with my senses, which send signals through my nerves, spinal cord and brain. I don't actually experience these internal happenings, but rather, their eventual translations into apprehendable phenomena. This isn't an abstraction; there is good proof against naive realism, in the form of various optical illusions (or hallucinogens), which prove phenomenologically that sense data is dependent on brain structure/chemistry. A good, non-intrusive illusion to showcase this is the phi phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_phenomenon The way we perceive our bodies is likewise phenomenological. This is showcased in such cases as phantom pains and the treatment with a mirror box. The rubber hand illusion also showcases the phenomenological status of our experience of our bodies: So, it becomes clear that everything I experience has to be in phenomenological form, for it to make sense to my consciousness. So what is mind, according to this definition? It's the direct experience and active agency of my mind, body and senses/perception.

"Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki, in audiobook form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1xoEawM3xw 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-26

Maurice Merleau-Ponty - "Éloge de la philosophie" (Dutch translation)

"Only those who understand it through silence and give shape to it through their own nature understand the Way." -Liezi (Amsterdam: Augustus, 2008), p. 132

His or her parents. They basically have sex. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Daoism is one of the Hundred Schools of Thought. It's not a religion. Nor is it a philosophy. It's a school of thought, with various sub divisions, created over time. Is it religious? Yes, some schools are. Wudang daoism, for instance. Is it philosophical? Yes, sometimes. Just take a look at the essays of Yi Kang and the other sages. Does it pertain to the Work, as in, a distilation of the soul through rituals? Yes, sometimes, as exhibited in "The Secret of the Golden Flower". These are all historical and intellectual ways of understanding an idea. I suggest not trying to understand daoism as an "idea", but rather, as an ability to return to ones unsullied, natural form (equate hexagram 25 of the I Ching), and in this way act in accordance with the flow of the universe ("the will of heaven"). I don't call it an ability in any subtle sense, but simply in it being "able". "Yin Xi of the Mountainpass said: "When you're not stuck within yourself, All things will reveal themselves to you. Move like water, Be silent as a mirror, Answer like an echo." - Liezi, translated by Jan de Meyer (in turn translated by me. So, yeah), p. 132. Intentionality can't keep it at a distance, non-intentionality can't bring it closer. Only those who understand it through silence and give shape to it through their own nature understand the Way. -Ibid. "Those who understand this can hide if they feel it appropriate, or they can act if they feel it appropriate. Listening to the creatures, he creates, while shining in his emotionlessness. Those who don't understand this will only be guided by their own desires and only follow their ears and eyes. They will waste their days without ever reaching insight or understanding. Who can glow without stagnation and entrust themselves to the natural harmony? To such a one, the nameless beginning will be shown, in the midsts of that what can't be seen." -Wunengzi, translated by Jan de Meyer, p. 64

So, what kind of practices are you following?

100 years ago? 1914? Didn't WW1 start, back then?

You are correct. What we know of the historical Socrates is through secondary sources. Next to the platonic dialogues dealing with the execution of Socrates (in other dialogues it becomes much more likely that Plato used his teacher as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, or "Ideas".), we also have several essays on Socrates by Xenophon, who was a close friend. Next to that is the play "Clouds" by Aristophanes, though that's more satire than fact. As for texts, Diogenes Laertius might be another source, though he wrote his "Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" several centuries later. Aristotle, when talking about Plato in his "Metaphysics", also mentions Socrates, elaborating on the difference between Plato and Soc. Finally, one has to mention Antisthenes, a close friend and follower of Socrates, who was a philosopher in his own right, and has several surviving fragments. So, yeah. The issue regarding the historical Socrates and what he said isn't exactly clear cut.

44/56. But, people should note that: "The second misconception, the 10% myth, is prevalent worldwide and has cultural consequences. It's used to motivate us to work harder and to explain paranormal phenomena. The pioneering psychologist and pre-neuroscientist William James gave public lectures in the early 20th century in which he told audiences that we reach only a small fraction of our brain's full potential. The mutation to 10% came from a nonscientist, self-help guru Dale Carnegie, as a way to boost book sales. We know that we need all of our brain to function and that a lot of brain activity is occurring even when we are focused on one task. Monitoring brain activity with fMRI or PET scanners and studying damaged brains to observe what functions are lost or affected show that every part of the brain is essential. It's possible to localize different brain regions to be necessary for various kinds of functions based on lesion and brain injury data, but in general, we require 100% of our brains." -Sam Wang, Neuroscience of Everyday Life, guidebook 1, page 10.

A student is only a student insofar he or she has the willingness to be taught. A teacher likewise, only is a teacher if he or she has the capacity to teach. If the student isn't willing, there will be no learning, and if the teacher isn't able, there is no progress. The concepts of "teacher" and "student" are nothing more than social conventions, though. There are no "teachers". There also are no "students". One could point the other in the right direction, but ultimately, everyone has to walk their own path.

That archeologist mentioned in the article? His name is Viktor Sarianidi, not Sariandidi... Just mentionin...

Nonsense. As far as I can tell, that whole "gateway drug" theory only holds for opioids... Do note that the agitated neuroreceptors differ per drug family, based on the specific neurotransmitter analogues. Psychoactive compounds only work because they mimic certain neurotransmitters, and those are drug (family) specific.