Mushtaq Ali

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mushtaq Ali

  • Rank
    Dao Bum
  1. Bill Bodri articles

    We are pretty much in agreement here. If one is identified with a particular mode of observation then there will always be trouble. I think even a preference will get you into trouble sometimes. Here's the thing. If you use the wrong tool, and each mode of observation is nothing more than a tool, you end up getting bad results. For instance, Christian creationism is the result of trying to use theological tools to address scientific data. What you get just dosn't work in the real world. The reverse is also true. Scientific attempts to quantify "faith" or the experence of "oneness" are as absurd as creationism. Immersing oneself into anything, to the point of identification, is perhaps not so good for you. Identification with science as truth will stunt your growth. So will identification with theology, philosophy, metaphysics, poetics, or anything else. It should only get thrown out of a particular mode of observation when it does not fit. This is one of the areas that you have run into problems. If you try to fit poetic facts into a scientific framework you will fail, or the reverse as well. Sometime try to write a poem about a sunset using only scientific observation. As I mentioned, entrenchment in any mode will produce the same sort of negitive effect. While you thought you were seeing a place where perhaps Scott was locked into a particular mode, what you failed to notice is that you were at least as locked into your mode in that conversation, therefore your communication was poor. I am quite familiar with his work, though I must allow that I am less impressed with him than you seem to be. I think that this is a laudable goal, in fact it is one that is very close to what I have devoted myself to for the last several decades. Here's the rub though, in order to find your "Rosetta stones" you must be very familiar with each modality and understand their strengths and their limitations. You must also not have an emotional attachment or repulsion to any of the modalities. In other words, you need to use the right tool for the job and not become attached to the tool. Unless you approach the problem with that kind of clarity you will have difficulties with your understanding. Are you really clear on it, or just miffed? If you had applied yourself to your "Rosetta stones", you would have noticed that the RMAX model has both a linear (hierarchical) and a nonlinear (process) aspect. When I view the list you mention, I orginize it thusly, which allows me to understand both the linear and nonlinear relationships and to grasp why they are organized in the way they are. The inability to think outside of a liner, sequential mode is one of the greatest weaknesses of "Western" perception. You seem to have fallen prey to that way of thinking as far as I can tell. Since you are interested in "cross cultural" material, and since you have mentioned the enneagram in some of your other posts (though in its debased form) you might be able to use it as a tool for understanding the nonlinear aspects of process. There are links to two PDF documents on the subject contained in this article that may of use to you. Breath Play They may provide you with some ideas on how to adapt yourself to a more nonlinear, non-Aristotelian mode of perception. The interesting thing is that Scott and I talk about spiritual things and their relationship to RMAX all the time, and we have never once had a cross word over the subject. I have even, from time to time, posted material of a spiritual nature to Scott's forum and had no negative feedback whatsoever. I have to assume, because of my own experiences, that the reasons for conflict had to do with things other than your post addressing "spiritual" content. So are you going to lock the thread since you have run out of patience? Perhaps you are seeing me asking the same sort of question because you keep giving me answers that to not relate to the question. From the rest of the response you have given to my question, I have to assume that you have created a false dichotomy around the idea of aging and are operating from it rather than from any direct experence. I suggest this because you seem stuck in an odd sort of "internal loop" around the idea of aging. Until you can break out of what seems to me to be a rather binary mode of thinking on the subject I don't think we can really exchange meaningful ideas. See, at some level you understand the difference between scientific fact and theological or poetic fact, though you do seem to still be enamored with the "ghost in the machine" model. Well, from things you have said here and elsewhere your definition of "voluminous body of meticulous scientific research" might be a bit different than my own. As to the "cross cultural" aspect of the practice, I am dubious that you are correct for a couple of reasons. There are no doubt any number of practices that have one or two points in common, but to assume that those points make the practice identical is rarely correct. Most often, in my experience, there is a great deal of difference between two practices from unrelated cultures. It is also a bit unlikely seeming to me that you have enough experience with enough cultures to make any meaningful comments on practices cross culturally. Your statement, "..fact that it's a form of practice found in almost every single culture and held by nearly every wisdom tradition to be one of the most crucial forms of practice..." reads more like a "game rule" than anything else. Also, you do not seem to have the sensitivity to cultural shifts that would be necessary to find the subtle nuances that differentiate between cultural experience. Understanding different cultural views is at the best of times a difficult process, but is impossible when you overlay your cultural bias on your experience. (you might benefit from the study of Garfinkel's work here) I don't mean this as a put down, just an observation that may be useful. So there you have it. This is either a start to a useful dialog, or something you can get pissed about. If it is the former then perhaps something good will come of it, if the later then you and your friends here can fond some humor and enjoyment from it.
  2. Lifeboat ethics

    Then you better take a quick look in it. There is no hostility on my part. As a matter of fact I am feeling pretty mellow, having spent the day being reminded of plesent memories of home.
  3. Bill Bodri articles

    Hey Sean, I grabbed the last post from our conversation on RMAX as a place to pick up the thread here. You said I do not see the split as "artificial". Scientific facts will describe certain types of experience, philosophical fact will describe other aspects of experience, poetic facts will describe a third. Each of these descriptions might (often will) be totally different, but each will be valid in their own area, but not in the area of another mode of observation. Personally, I have always viewed personality types as a sort of confidence game, so I don't really care if a personality is satisfied or not For me it is not so much a matter of integration as knowing when to apply each mode of observation. Personally, I would rather be awake enough to maintain a balance between them all. If you start thinking that you have to sacrifice one for the other I suspect you will lose them all. So why do you equate failure of health with aging? I thought this was a Taoist forum, aren't y'all working on immortality and such like? Oh, and why do you think "sitting meditation" is so important?
  4. Lifeboat ethics

    Really? Sorry, I must have missed it. Personally, though I like Sean, I have never felt the need to give his take on "the rules" more credence than my own. What's that saying? "I reject your reality and substitute my own". While you may not be able to save all ten that does not mean it can't be done. Nor does it mean that if you did sacrifice three the other seven would make it. Because, since it's your boat, if you can't find a way to save everyone, I am going to have to decide the best way to dump you overboard. Nothing happens in a vacuum. It is one thing to make a life and death decision about someone else, it is another thing to enforce that decision. Or did you mean why did I respond to your initial post rather than someone else's? That was for two reasons. 1. I found your responses interesting and wanted to know more. 2. You are going under an Apache name. I had wondered/hoped that you might be Indeh. Why do you use it then? She is a rather important person where I come from, but not well known elsewhere. I have to wonder why a Magaani would use the name, especially one from a country where it is unlikely that very many people have heard of her. No offense meant though, I am just a curious sort, and I had a momentary hope that you might have been from my neck of the woods.
  5. Lifeboat ethics

    (note to self, do not let this person have any life and death choices about you) Why? Do you think that it would be less wrong to save everyone by being a good problem solver? Why is it heroic to save everyone and not heroic to save seven of ten? No, but their gender matters less to me than their humanity/inwardness does, so it is not an issue. So how did an Israeli end up with an Apache name?
  6. Lifeboat ethics

    What makes you think that there are children, or women on the lifeboat? Is it more or less wrong than killing men? I like to think I am clever enough that I would find a way to save everyone. The idea that you "have" to throw three people off the boat is a false dilemma. You didn't answer my other question "he indeh dii?" (which means "are you Apache" ) I just ask because of your name.
  7. Lifeboat ethics

    Da nzho, he indeh dii? Why that order?
  8. Greetings

    I know a couple of the Wali Sango guys. It seems a nice system if you have strong knees Personally I like "old man" silat, much less work. From what I have seen though you could do a lot worse than studying with this group.
  9. Bill Bodri articles

    Hey Sean, Shall we pick up where we left off? (wherever that was)
  10. Greetings

    That would be the one. The particular school of silat is Silat Zulfikari, which you can read a bit about here.
  11. Greetings

    Thanks for the welcome Sean I will be happy to take up our conversation were we left off.
  12. Greetings

    Hello all, My name is Mushtaq Ali. I managed to find my way over here from the RMAX forum where I was in a conversation with one of the people here. Since the conversation seems to be (more or less) still going on over here I though I might join this forum and perhaps join in. For anyone who is interested, my background is: