moment

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

I think this could be very valuable.

 

Reading criticisms of the mod team in a restricted sub-forum where we are not welcome to respond and participate does little to help us reconcile and move forward as a community. I would hope that concerns about moderation be brought forward publicly, or privately to individual mods, so that we have an opportunity to better ourselves and better serve the community. Of course if people simply want to vent about us there is always PM and email.

 

I can see that I have been overly reactive in the recent past and I am committed to turning this around or stepping down. I’m not here to be a tyrant or because I’m on a power trip. I simply found the alt-right DaoBums and the wild wild west DaoBums untenable for me so I decided to get involved to try to improve conditions here. If I can not do better by all of you I am happy to pass the torch. I’m not referring to myself because it is all about me, simply because I can only speak for myself.
 

Given the openness of communication going on right now, I feel we have a real opportunity for progress but it will take a little flexibility and vulnerability all round.

I was tempted to say that there is too much dwelling going on (multiple occasions, multiple participants).  But, if people need to work things out; that too, has its' place.  Poisons can not just be wished away.

I have actually been sensing a break-through lately, and that pleases me.

I have noticed that @dawei has not been here since 7-21-20. We did not see eye to eye on many things, but, I do miss him.

5 hours ago, dwai said:

At what point do the incessant and tireless interactions on a forum like this actually become about "Self-introspection, self-improvement, and Self-realization"?

Just curious...there is a propensity to (pardon the pun) "Rage against the Machine" (whatever that machine might be at any given point in time).

But maybe the "RATM" phenomenon is avoidance of self-introspection?

Could it be that the phenomenon is an excuse to shirk from self-improvement?

 

Do people actually come here to share in the true spirit of free exchange of ideas, or do they come to challenge, duel, and win? And then, anything that is not "with me", becomes "against me". 

 

I believe all of the above exists at TDB---- and it should, for we all come here at different levels and needs. Keeping the balance is a tricky thing though. I believe as long as the moderators continue discussions and enforcements in a public forum, we as a community will do the best we can. I have confidence in my friends, aquaintances and moderators here.

3 hours ago, steve said:

 

I had this realization while engaged in one of my (formerly) favorite activities - fly fishing.

I used to absolutely love everything about it.

One day I felt as if that beautiful fish in my hand, struggling for breath, twitching and suffering was me.

We share that same life essence. I felt its fear, its abject terror, its life force.

I felt absolutely no right to subject it to such abuse and horror.

I've never fished since, don't think I ever could again.

Interesting! That is why I do not fish anymore.

47 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It´s an attempt at dialogue.  (oops...I noticed I left out the word "appears"...as in "the quote above appears to be...")

So, my friend,do you feel your skin thickening up?

1 hour ago, zerostao said:

I'm not sure a 2 hour time out constitutes an over reactive nanny state. The threads I closed are now re-opened. 

I did not say it was an over reactive nanny state.  I asked at what point does TDB become an over reactive nanny state?  It was a purposely nuanced question, as a segue for the future.

Thank you for re-opening them.

18 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

We would be able to hide a post which generated reports while we reviewed, but if I am remembering correctly there was some consternation over the hiding of posts as well.

 

 

Hopefully never. We have requested members report what they have issue with, and issued reassurances reports would be considered and member’s voices be heard. So how would you suggest we carry this out, without nannying? 

 

Thank you, and if you’re now good with hiding the posts under review we now have more clear direction from the membership. If not, then I await the brainstorming session and creative input this topic may deserve.

There will always be consternation!  But, what strikes you as more offensive--shutting down a bunch of non-offenders or one or two possible offenders for review?

I also am interested in community brainstorming. Let it continue, while screening for true offenses, instead of locking down all of the positive input with the very few (possibly) questionable ones.

7 minutes ago, steve said:

That might have been a good approach.

👍🏼

 

What a lob!

Must resist....

🤐

🤣

 

Thank you for that... a little patience please. Constructive feedback is helpful.

 

Did it feel like I was shouting?

😉

re

Does he take MasterCard?

🤣

 

I believe lobs are more constructive in these circumstances, fastballs might get the thread locked down for review. Plus you got a laugh out of it-- usually a good thing!

11 minutes ago, steve said:

 

This is one comment that was reported and is being reviewed.

We’ll let everyone know when the review is complete. 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Do you guys have the capability of pulling out one comment and say it is under review, instead of closing down the whole thread?

At what point does TDB become an over-reactive nanny state?  I for the most part applaud the new mods here. But, there has to be a better way than shutting down entire threads, over one or two comments.

I feel that William Blake was an under-appreciated painter and poet.

The Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with the Sun

William Blake 1804

“Doing nothing is better than being busy doing nothing.”
― Lao Tzu

“We may be floating on Tao, but there is nothing wrong with steering. If Tao is like a river, it is certainly good to know where the rocks are.”
― Deng Ming-Dao

“Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun.”
― Alan Wilson Watts

The layered bloom of hills and streams

Kingfisher shades beneath rose-colored clouds

mountain mists soak my cotton bandanna,

dew penetrates my palm-bark coat.

On my feet are traveling shoes,

my hand holds an old vine staff.

Again I gaze beyond the dusty world-

what more could I want in that land of dreams?---  Hanshan ( 1865-1944)

all in front of you,

yet pierced with less than a word

availed and veiled

The web site you seek
Cannot be located,
but Countless more exist

Chaos reigns within
Reflect, repent and reboot
Order shall return

Program aborting:
Close all that you have worked on.
You ask far too much.

Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

Your file was so big.
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.

Stay the patient course.
Of little worth is your ire.
The network is down.

A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.

Three things are certain:
Death, Taxes and Lost Data.
Guess which has occurred.

You step in the stream,
But the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.

Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.

Serious error.
All shortcuts have disappeared.
Screen. Mind. Both are blank.

Where is the printer?
The printer can not be found
Though it is next to me

     By various anonymous contributors

I truly and sincerely believe, that every single human being in the world, truly and sincerely believes, at least one thing; that is not true.

BABBLE

the great Tower of  Babble

not about the scattering: 

but the language taken back;

unity on earth now lost

our cultivators

tend to us with art

poetry, and mist, 

with failure and gain

Caretakers and the nurtured 

teachers and students 

all trying to make up for

that terrible loss

To hear, one must be silent.

8 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

The short version is it is a high yogic practice and I too am guilty as charged with anger and irritation. Being a high yogic practice, it goes deep into your trauma and unearths it in a cathartic manner. So you get to work with whatever is there and use FP as an ally as Castaneda would say when addressing it as opposed to burying it.

"addressing it as opposed to burying it."

35 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

 

Every-body is a no-body... my-self included.

 

 

 

PERIOD.

 

I understand what you are saying, ( and on a higher level that MAY be true) but, in this reality, I have never thought of you as a nobody and you are special.

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

... so I cannot keep on thinking who you are?

 

 

So---- I think, so therefore you are?

The ultimate sustainability is within your Core Being ,

When we are connected fully to our core, we are inner directed/inner sustained.

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

For me there´s a stark difference between my interactions in real life and on this forum.  On the forum, I´m all about putting forth a certain view of reality and then defending it when challenged.  I recently challenged the usefulness of Zork´s statement about achieving non-duality.  He quoted my reply and I´m tempted to reply back further hashing out my thinking about why I was right. Although I try to be polite, the format for "discussion" has more in common with a medieval duel than getting to know somebody.  

 

Am I like this in "real life?"  God no. In real life, I´m all about building relationships through conversation; I´m not so focused on convincing others of the rightness of my views.  In real life I´m much more receptive, more of a listener. I ask questions hoping to get others to express themselves.  People will oftentimes say something I disagree with and I won´t even voice my disagreement.     

"I´m all about building relationships through conversation; I´m not so focused on convincing others of the rightness of my views."  You do well with that here too.

On 8/25/2020 at 8:35 AM, steve said:

For most people, most of the time, the “I” is very real. I’m not yet to the point where it does not arise for me. Maybe someday but I’m not holding my breath.  It does not exist in the way it appears and feels but, from a Buddhist perspective, I think it is an error of negation to say there is no such thing. 

 

I disagree. I have found it useful in many ways for me. We all need different things at different times. Perhaps it’s not at all useful for you at this point in your life. I’ll accept that. 

 

I disagree on multiple levels. To keep it simple I’ll just say it can help show us the truth of the mind being the source of our unique experience of reality.

 

If I say something not intending to hurt anyone and the other person still feels offended, would you say their feeling is negated by my lack of intent?

 

Why not?

 

 

"We all need different things at different times."   (edited due to wordiness)

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Materialism developed as a philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century, as the influence of religion waned. And right from the start, materialists realised the denial of free will was inherent in their philosophy. As one of the most fervent early materialists, T.H. Huxley, stated in 1874, “Volitions do not enter into the chain of causation…The feeling that we call volition is not the cause of a voluntary act, but the symbol of that state of the brain which is the immediate cause."

 

Huxley anticipated the ideas of some modern materialists, such as psychologist Daniel Wegner, who claim that free will is literally a “trick of the mind.” According to Wegner, “The experience of willing an act arises from interpreting one’s thought as the cause of the act.” In other words, our sense of making choices or decisions is just an awareness of what the brain has already decided for us. When we become aware of the brain’s actions, we think about them and falsely conclude that our intentions have caused them. You could compare it to an imbecilic king who believes he is making all his own decisions but is constantly being manipulated by his advisors and officials, who whisper in his ear and plant ideas in his head. 

 

Many materialists believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, the scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move. In Libet’s experiments, a participant would be asked to perform a simple task such as pressing a button or flexing their wrist. Sitting in front of a timer, they were asked to note the moment at which they were consciously aware of the decision to move, while EEG electrodes attached to their head monitored their brain activity.

 

Libet showed consistently that there was unconscious brain activity associated with the action – a change in EEG signals that Libet called “readiness potential” — for an average of half a second before the participants were aware of the decision to move. This experiment appears to offer evidence of Daniel Wegner’s view that decisions are first made by the brain, and there is a delay before we become conscious of them — at which point we attribute our own conscious intention to the act.         

However, if we look more closely, Libet’s experiment is full of problematic issues. For example, it relies on the participants’ own recording of when they feel the intention to move. One issue here is that there may be a delay between the impulse to act and their recording of it — after all, this means shifting their attention from their own intention to the clock. In addition, it is debatable whether people are able to accurately record the moment of their decision to move. Our subjective awareness of decisions is very unreliable. If you try the experiment yourself, you’ll become aware that it’s difficult to pinpoint the moment at which you make the decision. You can do it right now, by holding out your own arm and deciding at some point to flex your wrist.

 

A further, more subtle (and more arguable) issue is that Libet's experiment seems to assume that the act of willing consists of clearcut decisions, made by a conscious, rational mind. But decisions are often made in a more fuzzy, ambiguous way. They can be made on a partly intuitive, impulsive level, without clearcut conscious awareness. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you haven't made the decision.

 

As the psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist, author of the Master and His Emissary, points out while making this argument that Libet's apparent findings are only problematic "if one imagines that, for me to decide something, I have to have willed it with the conscious part of my mind. Perhaps my unconscious is every bit as much 'me.'" Why shouldn't your will be associated with deeper, less conscious areas of your mind (which are still you)? You might sense this if, while trying Libet’s experiment, you find your wrist seeming to move of its own accord. You feel that you have somehow made the decision, even if not wholly consciously. 

An even more serious issue with Libet’s experiment is that it is by no means clear that the electrical activity of the “readiness potential” is related to the decision to move, and the actual movement. Some researchers have suggested that the readiness potential could just relate to the act of paying attention to the wrist or a button, rather than the decision to move. Others have suggested that it only reflects the expectation of some kind of movement, rather than being related to a specific moment. In a modified version of Libet’s experiment (in which participants were asked to press one of two buttons in response to images on a computer screen), participants showed readiness potential even before the images came up on the screen, suggesting that it was not related to deciding which button to press. 

 

Others have suggested that the area of the brain where the readiness potential occurs — the supplementary motor area — is usually associated with imagining movements rather than actually performing them. The experience of willing is usually associated with other areas of the brain (the parietal areas). And finally, in another modified version of Libet’s experiment, participants showed readiness potential even when they made a decision not to move, which again casts doubt on the assumption that the readiness potential is actually registering the brain’s “decision” to move. 

 

Because of issues such as these — and others that I don’t have space to mention — it’s mystifying that such a flawed experiment has become so influential, and has been used frequently as evidence against the idea of free will. The reason why the experiment has been so enthusiastically embraced is surely because the apparent findings fit so well with the principles of materialism. It seems to prove what materialism implies: that human beings are automatons.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201709/benjamin-libet-and-the-denial-free-will

I wonder what T.H. Huxley's conclusions would have been if he had trained extensively in advanced hand sensing techniques ( Chi Sao, push hands, etc) where reaction speed, mental imaging, decision making, is very different than his experiences and conclusions in his experiments.

8 hours ago, zerostao said:

https://www.writingroutines.com/renowned-writers-on-overcoming-rejection/

Much appreciated!