Mushtaq Ali

I can agree with this to an extent. I mentioned personality because I think it has a great deal to do with which modes of observation a person prefers to apply.

We are pretty much in agreement here. If one is identified with a particular mode of observation then there will always be trouble.

And preferences are fine. It's just there often comes a point in one's immersion in one mode, where one begins to find apparently irresolvable conflicts with other modes of perception.

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.

For example, immersing oneself in an objectifying, scientific worldview tends to make one highly skeptical of claims that cannot be proved by the tools of science.

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.

This has proved very useful for many things, not the least of which is discriminating legitimate theories from quackery. And yet there is an enormous, cross cultural body of knowledge derived through subjective, interior exploration and insight that typically gets thrown out when this scientific position is insisted upon as the only valid criteria for discerning truth.

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.

And it frequently is by people deeply entrenched in a scientific mode.

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.

(Along these lines you may want to check out Jean Gebser's IMO brilliant work on structures in human consciousness, particularly his theories on the effects of widespread, cultural over reliance on so called "objective" thinking.)

I am quite familiar with his work, though I must allow that I am less impressed with him than you seem to be.

So one of my passions is really for finding "rosetta stones" that help at the very least lubricate communication between these mods I believe are all trying to describe the same reality in different, and each very very valuable ways.

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.

And yet we all have a hierarchy. RMAX has a very explicit hierarchy. Health, Mobility, Function, Attributes, Physique. And as has been clarified for me recently,

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.

RMAX is a specialized system of physiological health and so much as asking how this system interfaces with what one may call a spiritual, or nonmaterial approach is obscene, prejudicial flame bait.

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.

I'm sorry, I only have the patience to explain this one more time.

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.

It's very simple. If your highest value in life is to have a lot of money, then you are at least momentarily failing to acheive your highest value if you run out of money and go into bad debt. If your highest value in life is to have physiologial health, then when/if you become 98 years old, and your skin is sliding off your decaying body, and your bones are brittle as twigs, and you barely have the energy to put your false teeth in and crawl to the toilet without help, and you have probably come down with any number of diseases that are almost guaranteed to strike someone as they advance into extremes of old age, then, by your own standard of health-as-highest-value, you are losing your values. You are failing to uphold your highest value. Your health is being taken from you. Your body is dying out from under you. And you are identified with not only it, but it's health as the most important thing attainable.

 

Conversely, if your highest value transcends and includes your body and your body's health, yet doesn't depend on your body functioning in any particular way or even living, then aging and death may be seen from this higher identification as part of a natural process that you are witness to. As part of God's plan for your soul, or as phenemonon arising within an inherently empty space of pure awareness that you truly are.

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.

Regarding Taoist immortality, as far as I am aware, historically only small sects of Taoists ever believed or attempted physiological immortality. It's a metaphor for a spiritual process of identifying one's consciousness more and more with that which never changes, never dies. In so doing "you" in your truest sense become immortal because you recongize the truth that you are not merely your body, you are something that includes the body and is also much more than it. Exactly what I was just referring to.

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.

I don't recall referring to "sitting meditation" specifically in any of the RMAX discussions. I believe I referred to "stillness meditation" which can be done in any comfortable position in which the body will not unnecessarily distract you. Some style of sitting is a good one though.

 

Perhaps it would be useful here to ask you to explain what you mean when you say "meditation". Perhaps you might also cover "stillness" and "stillness meditation" because I don't want to make any false assumptions about what you are talking about.

 

The reason I think it's so important, besides the voluminous body of meticulous scientific research showing it's mental, emotional and physical health benefits across the board (which have not been scientifically correlative with exercise studies btw), and besides the 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, is simply my own, undeniable empirical experience.

 

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.

M.A.

 

You have asked me some questions about things that are pretty intensely personal, and I would probably be open to responding if I didn't feel like you were directing such hostility in my general direction. I hope you find the answers you need in some other way.

 

I hold up the mirror.

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.

 

Mushtaq, sure, post whatever thoughts you may have on Bodri, language of the subtle body, meditation, Scott and I's "debate", etc.

 

Sean

Hey Sean,

I grabbed the last post from our conversation on RMAX as a place to pick up the thread here.

You said

One of my deepest passions in life has always been to bridge what I see as an artificial split between science, philosophy, esoteric wisdom and common sense. I don't think there is a system yet that fully integrates all four to all personality type's satisfaction. And maybe there never will be.

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.

Off the top of my head, I would have to say that I believe Love and Truth are more important to me than Health. I would rather sacrifice my health than disrespect or harm others and I would rather sacrifice my health than have reality occluded by ignorance.

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.

Of course give me all three if I may, please. But if my health begins to fail, as I grow old and die, let me still smile on those I love and continue remaining open to the truth as it simply is.

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?

M.A.,

 

1. I already answered the question.

Really? Sorry, I must have missed it.

2. Sean said that you have to decide which three people to throw out or all 10 will die. In that case, I would think it would not less than heroic to pretend that this was not the case, thereby killing everybody.

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.

3. It's my life boat, not yours, so why are you so concerned with my responses?

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.

4. It's not my name.

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.

Yes, I think it is more wrong to kill women and children than it is to kill men. I think it would be even more wrong to sink the ship and kill everyone while trying to be heroic. I don't know if there are women or children on the lifeboat or not, neither do you...

(note to self, do not let this person have any life and death choices about you)

Yes, I think it is more wrong to kill women and children than it is to kill men.

Why?

I think it would be even more wrong to sink the ship and kill everyone while trying to be heroic

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?

I don't know if there are women or children on the lifeboat or not, neither do you

No, but their gender matters less to me than their humanity/inwardness does, so it is not an issue.

No, I'm not Apache. I'm Israeli.

So how did an Israeli end up with an Apache name?

Killing children is wrong, in my book. Women are the bearers of children.

 

Would you pick a different order? Save the men and throw the women and children to the sea? Just a question.

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.

This response is gonna piss you off Sean, but I'd save all the children (girls first, then boys) and then the women (esp. pregnant women).

Da nzho, he indeh dii?

Why that order?

Zulfikari looks pretty good. I'm not a martial artist, but have been thinking of starting Silat training with Steven Benitez in London - apparently a very talanted martial artist... His particular style is Walisongo Silat - I like it because it's traditional with internal aspects but also very much applicable in 'real life' - and it combines ground fighting, weapons, multiple attackers etc.

 

have a look at eastweststudios.com for more info on Benitez - there are a few interesting articles there too.

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.

Hey Sean,

Shall we pick up where we left off? (wherever that was)

Welcome Mushtaq,

 

You piqued my interest mentioning the poorly known Indonesian martial art - can I ask what it is? (Pencak Silat by any chance?)

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

Welcome Mushtaq. It's great to see you here. I've enjoyed your posts on RMAX for a number of years now. Feel free to jump in on any discussion any time.

 

Sean

Thanks for the welcome Sean

I will be happy to take up our conversation were we left off.

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:

Teacher of a poorly known Indonesian martial art

Have practiced a little Chi Kung and such like

am a linguist and translator of obscure languages

have done a lot of traveling

don't take most people seriously, especally myself