Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM
Subject RE: I disagree on the meta level
By the way, never be afraid to disagree with me, never be afraid to debate. Debate is something I view as a mutually strengthening exercise, kind of a form of yoga for an idea, and as such an act of true friendship. Far from feeling angry or discouraged, I'm both excited by and terribly grateful for the input you've given me. The way I see it debate is, ideally, a way two people with a common goal--getting closer to an understanding of some truth--trying to help each other get close to that truth by listening to one another, pointing out potential weaknesses and improvements in the understanding of truth. Debate doesn't get to be about winning and losing until you begin to value the particular discourse you're using over the truth you're trying to get at--confusing means with ends, concepts with reality. I think that's why the "debate" within our country's political parties, congress, etc. is so ineffective at helping us find a way out of the mess this world's in. Maybe I'm a bit biased in my ideals about debate--I don't know if I ever told you about why I had to drop out of high school at 15, but it here's the short version: the summer before seventh grade, I came to the conclusion that any existing idea needed to be challenged to the fullest extent possible. If the idea was "right," it could be refined and strengthened, and if the idea was "wrong," it could be discarded in favor of a more accurate model. QED. I still thought that way at the time. I behaved accordingly for the next three years, playing a very articulate devil's advocate in just about every situation that presented itself, including all my classes. To some extent I enjoyed the intellectual challenge of riddling ideas through with as many holes as possible, and to some extent I did get a degree of egoistic pleasure out of out-debating everyone I knew, but I also believed very much that I was doing people a favor, no matter how badly I frustrated them. But it was a fundamentalist Christian area, and most people at the school, teachers and classmates, didn't understand what I was trying to do, and tended to get really offended when they felt their belief systems under attack (and it was debate, not attack, but no one really noticed). I was annoying at best and occasionally ranged into Antichrist territory. So at the beginning of 10th grade my special education evaluation talked to teachers and also my classmates, who were utterly fed up, and basically my guidance counselors came up with a behavioral checklist that basically required me to stop cold turkey if I wanted to get college courses the next year. And I did it, but I also happened to have a nervous breakdown that year as a direct result of the behavioral checklist and its stringencies, and by the end of the year I'd decided to drop out and just go to college and be done with it. There was nothing else I really could have done, if I'd stayed I'd have killed myself for sure. But it's funny, from the outside it looks like I rejected my school, hometown, etc. when I dropped out and all, but by the time I left I felt like I'd already been exiled for the past year. That's what the checklists said to me--the school did not want me, or my debates, or what I had to offer. So the upshot of all that is that I kind of resolved to look at people who disagreed with me as a resource, and I decided to genuinely listen to what they had to say. Remember when that Roman Catholic guy bitched me out in the co-op? I was upset not because he'd yelled at me, but because he stormed out before I could ask him to tell me his side of the story. What I mean to say is that the points you've made are really important to me, especially since you really listened to what I was trying to say and since you engaged with it in such a fruitful way. They help reveal bits of the puzzle I wasn't quite seeing before. So thank you, first of all. And I'm really excited about how we could come at it from pretty different backgrounds (anthropology and the social sciences from one side, religion and set theory from another) and yet arrive at similar ideas. Anyway, all my remarks are after ~~~~~
Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM
Subject I disagree on the meta level
Hi Rachel,
I wrote between the ***
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000,
You're not crazy, Ed. And even if you are there are a lot of people experiencing the same kind of crazy right now. You know, whatever you're working on it sounds like you should meet a couple friends of mine, they're engineering students at MIT who also happen to be the sort of people you'd expect to grow up to be high priests of something or other. That was my gut reaction when I read about the 14 computers, wow, this guy has to meet Daniel-san and Elmo. Like maybe you'd all come up with some cool brainstorm 20 years from now or something. Personally I'm fascinated by science but stymied by the math. It's probably why I hang around with science people so much.
****************** Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ***********************
I'll tell you one thing. Maybe I'm better at math than you but if you could whip off that email in just a few hours you got me beat in all the other forms of thinking! I have to read it & reread it. I remember when I was talking with you I had to concentrate hard to follow all the aspects of what you were saying. I mean with most people I can be daydreaming at the same time as I talk with them. Anyway just a compliment-but a warning too-some people do not like it when someone is smarter than them. I kind of think that's why Bush won. (Beside election fraud)
But anyway. Yes I would love to meet other people who are as deep and as quick as you. The only thing is that I, umm, well I guess I am a solo scientist. I sort of do things my own way. I've always avoided other scientist types - like the plague -Especially if they are going to do "tech talk". It drains me in a way. I'm not looking for new ideas at this point, just trying to crank out the old. But if we could talk about other stuff I'd love to meet them. Oh, yeah, there's one other thing as well. The friend of friend thing doesn't always work that well with me. I mean if it happens great but to intentionally put me with this other person I'm suppose like, I don't know it's like I feel that pressure of the expectations & stuff and it doesn't help. Now that I said that though, I guess the expectations are now sort of gone, so yeah, maybe.
I'm more known as a musician / poet. I write songs and play to random people on the street. I like that sort of interaction much more. Love the eye contact, the high, I get from it. It gives me valuable life energy that I need. Did I have my guitar with me when we met?? I forget. Anyway, it's that feeling of connection that I desire.
Are you an Aquarius by any chance? Maybe an early Aquarius?? Just by the way and how fast you think. (I'm a Gemini)
I am sorry but I was very cryptic about my project, It's not so much a way or a solution in itself but more a way to implement solutions. I actually think that coming up with solutions is the easy part, I'll probably end up leaving that to others.
Nevertheless, I love the things your mind comes up with. And I'd love to delve into it....
***************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000, *******************
So about the Nagasaki-Hiroshima thing... A tool only amplifies the capabilities of humans to do what they will...the real issue is this whole problem of human hatreds, which is a tough nut to crack. I had this real strong breakthrough maybe 2 weeks ago, I think it was the sum result of excessive amounts each of: social science reading, zen practice, studying postmodernism, and grieving a friend's death. It all managed to shake me out of my usual normative patterns, out of "logic" and "common sense."
*******************Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
It is through these "shakes" that most discoveries are ever made. Like
******************* Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000******************
I'm looking at the past 1000 years or so and what I'm seeing is a couple things:
1. Our dominant world religions are handed down, more focused on dogma than on individual spiritual revelations. Thus the methods of worship are less likely to hold the creation of a truly ecstatic experience for the adherents as a high priority. Dogmatic religions are also likely to take themselves far too seriously for any one's good--taking things too seriously also impedes ecstatic experience.
********************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ******************
You say a lot here. Yes, I feel hurt by that, dogmatic religions taking themselves way too seriously and totally suppressing the real spiritual experience. I mean there are some small exceptions, but they are small and few. But even they could become larger and after several generations become dogmatic ... etc etc. I mean Jesus was so radical that his own church nailed him to a cross!!! They couldn't deal with the fact that someone was shaking up their set of beliefs. I mean check it out: They got him on "healing on the Sabbath" and for calling himself one with God. Big whoopee shit! If they killed everyone who made this minor of a perturbation from their doctrines they would of genocided themselves!. They knew he wasn't worthy of death. However they would rather kill him than deal with they fact that what they have learned all their life, and all their parents life would not be true anymore. This is a key point. I suppose part of the reason for wars and the killing of other people could be because of the need for resources. I don't applaud that but understand how societies could be pushed between a rock and a hard place and have no other option. Trouble is that that's not really the main reason for wars in general, is it? It is usually because of attachment to ideologies. People would rather kill than believe that what they and their dead ancestors have learned all their life is wrong. The same reason Jesus was killed by his Jewish siblings.
I choose the example of Jesus of course 'cause look at the Christian church today! The total antithesis of the founder! OK, below, you are right there are no opposites but I use the phrase "total antithesis" to make my point. OK so what I pointing out is that, even though I agree with you, I am trying to brainstorm and find a higher truth here. The more root issue is that all religions will follow this path of eventually becoming dogmatic. I think the reason for that is attachment. It also has to do with the fear of loss.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well "attachment" is alternately translated "desire" "wanting" "clinging" and "egoistic craving." I agree that attachment is key to this whole problem, and I think it's important to look at the other shades of meaning the original sanskrit has, especially the "clinging" and the "egoistic" bits. In my experience clinging is a response to fear...I do think that attachment is a direct result of the fear of loss, and maybe fear of loss is a manifestation of deeper fears. Kind of a cover story, if you will. I guess what I'm wondering is what these deeper fears may be. What do you think? Oh yeah, I also don't know if religions all eventually become dogmatic...I mean, all faiths probably do to some extent, but the question is what will be the extent of this move towards calcification? For instance the Jivaro in Amazonia and the Anishinabe in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 3pt solid; mso-element: para-border-div; mso-border-bottom-alt: wave windowtext 3.0pt">And I hate to say it also has to do with that same death fetish and honoring the dead. I see this in my own life. In the passing of time and our reactions to it. In small things. In people I know....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an important piece, right here. The whole bit about honoring the dead... We've been doing that for the past 50,000 years. Is honoring the dead the same as fetishizing them? If these are different things, how are they related? Hmm. I think I have more to say about this but it hasn't quite come together yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See, as one lives their life, things come up, decisions are made, sacrifices are made etc etc. This is life. People have spent precious life years doing "A" as opposed to "B" because of decisions they have made based on beliefs they had at the time. Who knows maybe they really would have rather been doing "B" but they made that decision years ago. They have sacrificed so much of their life because of their belief system of the past, that to change their belief system now would mean that all those years past were in vain.
Now, people value their life even more than money - and that's saying a lot but most would trade all their money to save their life. Right? Now whether your life was a glowing success or a bitter failure is all a matter of opinion. It all depends on the belief system. Some systems would validate "A" much more that "B" or vice a versa. So check it out, the value of that which is more precious than all the money the person has is dependent on the resident belief system. Kind of like the dog biting its tail or I am my own Grandpa, circular, infinite loopyness. The science of this infinite loop type stuff is unknown but chances are that most of these human systems will develop some internal mechanism to prevent their belief structures from changing too much. The ones that do not will experience the incredible pain that their life was a waste - that could lead to depression which can be debilitating.
See what I mean. People have an investment in their past. I mean for an instance..... OK, I met this crazy guy at a rainbow gathering once that had invented his own "religion" and he cut off his balls as somehow part of his religious celebration. OK. Now, someone is going to have a harder time convincing him that his religion is full of shit than a recently converted jesus freak or something. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE HAS A
It is because of people's investment in or attachment to their own past actions. Now, add in this death fetish thing and honoring the dead. So you got the current living generation 'stuck' with upholding the beliefs of their dead ancestors. For if they do not adhere they make their ancestors completed life's vain. The pain of this is intolerable. The guilt trips are worse! They would rather die or inflict death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly. How do you believe that your ancestors have suffered and sacrificed in vain? More than that, how do you justify the fact that *they* killed, caused others to suffer, over a belief system that may be “wrong”? Because your ancestors, your people, are kind of an extrapolation in your mind of your own beloved…living and deceased family members, friends, etc. in whose faces and in whose memory you see your own “nation.” Now that I think about it though, I don’t think the only options are either perfectly reproducing the value system handed to you or, conversely, rejecting everything your ancestors have bequeathed to you. One could argue that the greatest honor you can give to the dead is to take what they’ve given you and really engage with it, probe it to its depths, see it from both inside and outside, take what you find best and do what you can to add to it—even if that means some of the past actions no longer seem right, or necessary, under the new ethic. Put it this way. Maybe the guy who cut off his balls could embrace another faith, if he were to recognize that following the faith he’s been following and even cutting off his balls have been important steps in the evolution of his new understanding of the world, god, etc. In fact, perhaps the best way to honor his sacrificed testicles is to continue in his personal and spiritual evolution, even if that evolution takes him to a place where ball-cutting would not have been necessary. Difficult, perhaps. But possible. Most of the time when people go into therapy, it’s because they keep sacrificing their present and future well-being to appease some past demon/system-of-being, and unless they can recognize that they need to move beyond an old idea (say, “I am unlovable”) to which they have sacrificed much (in this case, years of possible happiness, good relationships, perhaps even true love) they will continue to suffer. So there’s kind of a Dhao to learning to take what’s “good” even from terrible things (from extended suffering over the belief that one is unlovable, for instance, one can learn compassion for others going through the same, learn compassion for those acting from a place of unloved-pain, and learn the importance of showing lovingness to people in your life), and thus convincing yourself that the sacrifices weren’t worthless because they eventually brought you to a place of change. That’s one of the main points of going for therapy. Anyway the point I’m making about societies is that this path is available to them, but is often discounted because of the insularity of cultures…cultures, maybe trying to preserve their own stability, try to resist change and influence by chopping off that which is “outside set A” rather than keeping what they can from set A and embracing the rest too. And this is a barrier to the healing process, I think.
***************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000*******************
2. The inner logic of our spiritual faiths in many ways reflects our culture's idea of "common sense"...a notion that is built from daily experience. Thus, a dogmatic faith is a reflection of a dogmatic nation-state/empire governmental system. A dogmatic faith implies certain power relations are "normal" within your society, either in a marriage, in a family, in a company, in a nation (with its government and police force), in a global economy.
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
You are so right on! I love the way that you can see to the core of things. Trouble is it is actually hard to unweave this in our own heads. I mean there is no point to stand. What then IS normal?? What IS true?? I mean so much of what we are raised on and made of comes from this so how can we come up with some totally independent initial assumptions??
~~~~~~~~~~~Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, what IS normal??? I think it’s just a measure of how neatly our experiences fit into our idea of how reality works. I think of normal—and all concepts, really—as a map of sorts, a simplified sketch of how this world works. The whole purpose of maps is to limit the amount of information that we’re looking at…in order to save us the trouble of sifting through huge amounts of information, we choose which information is important and look only at that. It’s a convenience. If we have drawn an “effective” map, it should show us a generalized idea of where to start, which direction to go to get where we want to be. An accurate map can “save time” and “energy”…but I don’t really know how high a priority that should always be. I think our culture places kind of a pathological emphasis on it. And of course there’s always the issue of mistaking the map for the location itself, the concept for the reality, the tool for the goal. Zen teaches to move to a place where we can see beyond our mapping, maybe discard it. I don’t know if we need to discard it altogether, I’m still pondering on that one. But we certainly have to develop the habit of taking reality checks. And my other thought is, how does the mapping process itself end up affecting our goals, where we’re trying to get to? When it comes to the question of what is true, that may be a question for the philosophers. I tend to agree with Gandhi, that absolute truth may well be beyond human comprehension, but we should constantly strive to bring our own personal subjective truths closer to absolute truth, which requires a spirit of inquiry, openness, and kind challenge—and in the mean time, act in accord with truth as best as we can understand it. I also don’t know if completely independent initial assumptions are possible. I’m not sure they exist, but at the same time I wouldn’t rule it out. I keep getting bummed out because it seems every time I get a unique and original thought, I find out after a couple hours that some jackoff was born a century or two early enough to beat me to it. Oscar Wilde beat me to my idea about how to stop suffering…Hegel beat me to my idea that ideas may develop autonomy/free will and become entities using us as much as we use ideas. It’s one of those minor annoyances that really shouldn’t bother me, but I kind of find it a bummer somehow. But anyway. Maybe the best we can hope for is independent evaluations of our maps, the logical processes that brought us to those maps, and the postulates we started with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is how we see the world, it is true -there is so much that is assumed and we are sort of forced to follow suit to at least some extent. To make any changes here they would have to be slow and incremental. But then again -change to what? We ourselves are part of this! We have the problem of the infinite loop again here, and I don't know how to get out of it so I would suggest bad as it may be, to leave well enough alone here - unless YOU have some insight...?..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, no one says that at a certain point the infinite loop can’t be changing while creating the feedback, thus changed feedback. You said yourself scientists can’t be sure how infinite loops really work….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~
So continue with your Zen. I went down to this very progressive church I sometimes go to. Yes it's a little too "churchy". Jazz service & I'm the only one dancing... Nevertheless, they try.. Refer to God in the feminine sometimes (they alternate pronouns or something - for a Christian church that's something) Party I went to last night was also religious in a sense, and not in another sense. Just the seeing people I know & don't know is something. Drum circles can be awesome. All these things have a part of the divine and a part of the deadness (below) but in different ways. I can only suggest all of them in the way each person is drawn to and feels right to them. I can't suggest more than Baby steps here but I am open to your input.
For me actually this "religious ecstasy" happens often when by myself - maybe on a walk. It is a feeling of incredible love and I shoot it to the divine, sometimes to others that just happen to be there & I see some genuine human characteristic of them. Sometimes, more intentionally, to ones I know who are not there at the time....
****************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000, ******************
3. Religious ecstasy is a fundamental need of the human heart...even if you're flashing the stage at Rocky Horror Picture Show, or dancing in a club, you can be reaching those peaks of ecstasy that your emotional well-being periodically requires. Because handed down (non-revelatory) religions tend to have crappier methods of inspiring ecstasy (choosing homilies over sweat lodges, for instance) and tend to impede visionary experiences further by taking themselves too damn seriously, they rely on other methods for creating loyalty and emotional attachment among their constituents. These other methods basically involve spinning some form of cosmic drama, which inspires not only fear and guilt but also ecstatic moments of feeling forgiven and unconditionally loved. Basically you end up creating a logic of diametrically opposed opposites: good and evil, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, civilization and savagery, high and low, beginning and end, life and death, mercy and wrath, love and hate, reward and punishment. Opposites are moving. They're dramatic. They will snag your audience. Realizing God loves you unconditionally is only really dramatic if you believed at some point that God was ready to smote you into the nether reaches of hell. Hero stories and victim stories are particularly popular, even when there is no real-world basis for victim stories (look at what Christian Europe did with the Jesus story, spinning a victim hood story that's plagued us for centuries now, even though Christians haven't been oppressed since the council of
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
Like I heard the men getting the free food at the mission, they got to take an earful in to get a belly full later. But, yeah, that churchyness is sort of a feeling of deadness more than aliveness. So it may very well be the case that you get that pseudo-ecstasy feeling once in a great while when there is a tiny hole in the deadness. Too much aliveness and they'll throw you out, of course, but those are exactly the ones that they would best be like. (I have an opposing thought come up in my mind that maybe this apparent "deadness" is so that we will be less distracted to see the god within.)
Hmmm, I also believe that it is ecstasy or bliss that is union with God. (Well there are, of course two kinds, I mean, of course, the one that doesn't come from ego.) It seems that the whole system is against it. I mean if you are just plain happy the police are watching you carefully to make sure you're not up to something. OK, if you are happy 'cause you won the lottery that's applauded but the divine ecstasy seems to be controlled in society. I think it is because it IS real power. And the system needs to control it the same way an antibody fights a germ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hierarchy creates and perpetuates itself by hoarding (and ideally monopolizing) power, whether that power be social, political, economic, spiritual, you name it. And maybe that’s why the system’s so hell-bent on controlling divine ecstasy. In order to maintain itself as a power structure it has to prevent too many people from acquiring power themselves. You know, I didn’t really see this clearly until you said something about it. Here we have another missing piece. So kudos…I kind of feel like a dime-novel sleuth, do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is something else going on here as well. I call it systems theory. Any system that exists in the world - be it a microorganism, a city, a galaxy, whatever, anything that exists as a unit for a period of time I call a system and there are some basic truths related to them. One basic axiom of all systems that actually exist for a period of time is that they all have some mechanism to maintain themselves. The proof is simple. Any "system" that does not have such a mechanism will dissolve; it will cease to exist because there is nothing keeping it together. There is no way to experience this "system" because it exists only for a flash. The only systems that we could actually experience have this self - maintenance mechanism. Now there's a lot of energy in "opposites" or edges. It could very well be that these necessary self maintaining mechanisms evolve to utilize the concept of opposites only because by perhaps trial and error it found out that that was the most effective mechanism of self maintenance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I emailed you already about this, but I do want you to know I want to hear more, I’m really interested. Maybe the issue with systems is that they place themselves as the standard unit of analysis, and thus see themselves as separate somehow from the rest of it, so they worry about maintaining the health of themselves as a whole, but less so with maintaining the health of all their component parts, or with maintaining the health of entities it sees as “outside” itself. This is just thinking out loud, but I can’t prove that there is any effective separation between “me” and “not-me” except for the separation I make in my mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So my quick response is that, OK this ecstasy thing is like from a totally different universe (the divine sphere) than the system is in. The system recognizes it as a foreign body and attacks it.
Point two is that this deception of the concept of opposites is just and only a very powerful tool. Most systems have evolved to utilize powerful tools in there arena to do their work. So chances are this deception of opposites is used to control divine ecstasy. I of course agree that your observation is correct but I guess I am disagreeing with you on the meta level.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a very real possibility, I hadn’t thought of that. Is opposites-logic a cause or a tool? I really can’t answer that. I don’t know if I ever would be able to answer that. But it’s something to think about, so thank you much, you have my gratitude for pointing this out. I guess the question I’m wrestling with is, is divine ecstasy from a fundamentally different “system” that can in truth be separated from the “system” we’re living under, or has the “system” we’re living under decided to separate itself conceptually from an integrated whole—in other words, does the “system” we live under recognize ecstasy as a foreign body because it IS a foreign body, or because the “system” has decided to recognize it as one even though in reality there are no foreign bodies? What do you think?
Of course this phenomenon does exist. That is the phenomena of the false concept of opposites used to control true divine expression.
I really could be wrong, you may be right. I feel like I need to give it more thought. I just see that there are 4 more points below and I sort of want to get this letter off today. So let's say. To be continued but I disagree for now.
****************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000******************
4. Opposites don't really exist in the real world. A tree does not have an opposite. I do not have an opposite. I may think of my brother as being my opposite, but this is only possible by creating a conceptualized "self" and a conceptualized "little brother," and then setting them up as polarized figures in the mind. But the conceptual versions of things are not those things. Imposing opposites-thinking on the real world teaches us to see the concept of something rather than that thing itself. Thus it makes us more likely to project our own issues onto external realities. Our relationships with other people (and our planet too) become altered and shaded by the concepts we have confused the actual people with. We interact with concepts instead of people.
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
Actually you are right. I was thinking of just pure logic & set theory. You must know that basic stuff where you got a circle with an “A” in the middle and they call that set “A” and there is a square box around it and they call that “U” (for the universe). So everything is in “U”. Set “A” is a subset of “U”. OK, so, very simple thinking. “A” is everything inside the circle and then "not-A" would be everything in “U” that is outside the circle. Right? Set theory 101. OK so “A” and "not-A" would be opposites right??? Wrong! It all depends on how we define our terms. For one thing, both “A” and "not-A" are both sets. So that is one way in which they are similar. So to find the opposite of set “A” we would need to find everything that is not A AND ALSO is not a set! Good luck! (By "good luck" I mean it ain't gonna happen - so yes I agree with this point that there are no true opposites)
It all has to do with how we define our terms.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I actually know nothing whatsoever about set theory…but like I said, it’s pretty cool how we can come towards similar conclusions using quite different tools. Pretty cool indeed.
***************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000*****************
5. Opposites thinking also creates a tendency within individuals and cultures to amputate and repress that which does not fit into the preconceived mold. For instance, if I am a Catholic and also gay, one or the other must be given up. Often when we try to dissociate ourselves from a quality our worldview can't accommodate, we become more likely to project that particular quality onto an "enemy." I am not savage, that Injun is...I am not decadent and vain, that American infidel is. And then people try to burn those elements of themselves in effigy by acting with aggression towards this "enemy." It's attempting to practice a form of sympathetic magic, like poking a voodoo doll...by killing Injuns, Spanish conquistadors were trying to both kill their own "barbarism" and prove their loyalty to a certain "civilized" worldview. But this whole system relies on seeing the concept rather than the person, "savagery" rather than an indigenous group of swiddenists.
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
SHIT!! I am victim of my own syndrome I mentioned above!! I just spent all this time thinking about the opposite’s thing, made my assessment of it and so now I do not want to take this in!!! I am attached to my own thoughts - to my own hour or two I spent thinking about it.... OK, let it go again....
I very very much agree with what you are saying here - as well as above I am just wondering about the meta level of all this.
I actually use this whole vehement denial thing to lie detect. Check it out sometime. Observe people when they talk. There is a change of energy when they say something they know not to be true. I mean they may have convinced themselves that it is true but somewhere inside they really know. I say change of energy - If they KNOW that they are lying their energy sort of increases. If they don't know - or have deceived themselves it sort of decreases. Check it out with friends & stuff but if you do, watch out, people will hate it and will even reject you if you tell them that they are lying to you. (Especially if they really are)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HA! I do this ALL THE TIME. It’s not just their energy, there are a bunch of red flags that go up. Subtle changes in body language and scent. I actually have this really frightening ability to read body language…I think it’s because my mind is part animalistic, or maybe I’m just somewhat telepathic, or maybe it’s because learning to read body language was how I coped with my social anxiety disorder (because then I could always tell someone’s intentions towards me). When I was in middle school and my mother was trying to drag me kicking and screaming into pop culture, she used to sit down with me and turn on MTV’s Real World or Road Rules, and we’d have these little competitions to see who could make the most accurate predictions about which cast member had the serious girlfriend back home, abusive parents, high school pregnancy, issues with alcohol, etc. So that’s also partially how I developed it, though I’m much more accurate when I’m there in person, I think because I read the energy too, but I’m not entirely sure. But oh yeah, our Prez has a tell when he lies. Now a good bunch of the time he’s deluded into thinking he’s telling the truth, that much is clear when he talks. But if he’s going to outright lie or omit a big chunk of information, he blinks rapidly 5-6 times and purses his lips for half a beat before telling the lie. Which is why I always watch his speeches…even if the words are lies, I can get closer to the truth. I actually never throw it in people’s faces when I find them lying to me. If they know they’re lying, I can usually tell why (i.e. they don’t want to bum me out with an awful story, which I’ve already seen on their faces anyway while they were trying to decide which version of events to tell me, or they don’t know how well they can trust me, or they’re embarrassed, or they want to pull something over on me). Since usually an out-and-out lie is more cowardly than Machiavellian, I usually try to be warmer and less threatening, kind of let the person know it’s all right to tell me the truth. When people have themselves deluded it’s kind of easier…there’s a whole trick to asking just the right questions or having just the right remark at just the right time, and kind of leading them through the thought processes until they realize wow, what I thought was true really wasn’t. That’s always kind of preferable to my sensibilities, because they arrive at a conclusion thinking they’ve thought of it themselves, and not realizing I caught them at it, not realizing I noticed anything. It’s just been my experience that people are usually a lot more comfortable with that than somebody openly dissecting them. Which is maybe the more direct route…I dunno, I sometimes feel torn between brutal honesty and an effective gentleness. I guess I’ll figure it out at some point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The use of exaggerations like "definitely" is more likely to flag a false statement than the humble "I think so". Again from your opposite’s theory, an exaggeration comes from an emotion. The emotion comes from that self denial shit. Or rather this self hatred shit. Hating the part of themselves that keeps them apart from their dead ancestors whose lives they do not want to have been in vain. So to digress, perhaps hatred is just & only caring for something else more.
They care more for the honor of their dead elders than they care for themselves. So they hate the part of themselves that keeps them separate from what they are too attached to let go of. Well if you are studying Zen you must know Buddha’s Nobel truths. Isn't one of them that the root of all suffering is attachment??? Well here we go. The real root appears to me to be attachment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well the real issue then is, what is attachment? Where does it come from? Why do we have it? I said it earlier, clinging is usually a sign of fear, and fear is usually a sign of clinging, they’re kind of two sides of the same coin. So what are we really afraid of? What are we afraid of losing? I think this whole clinging does have a very important role, maybe THE important role, in this whole human hatreds thing. I’m not entirely sure about that. I’m thinking on it. Maybe attachment is what makes the whole conceptualization/mapping/opposites-logic so destructive…maybe what’s dangerous about them is not necessarily that they exist, so much as the way attachment makes us cling to the ones we’ve got. I’m not sure. Let’s just say I’ll be thinking quite hard about this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK so I postulate that the deeper root of the problem is attachment. At some point, the person or system stumbles upon some misconception that allows it to keep its attachment and so deeply absorbs that misconception into itself. Since the misconception of opposites is everywhere, it is very likely to be the misconception absorbed.
So I guess I am sticking to my guns about how the real core problem is not opposites but now I see it as attachment. The misconception of opposites are just convenient tools that are everywhere. I mean even in the yin-yang symbol.... Wait a minute! YES the misconception of opposites is the FIRST misconception. It is the very first thing encountered in metaphysics when going from the formless to form. It is the author of form, the author of the veil. The veil is the entire universe that we see but it is a misconcept. In reality it does not exist. In reality there is just and only God. OK, if I push buttons by the name God swap in the word you would use but that's what I use.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, no buttons pushed. A rose by any other name. But you’ll get a kick out of this, the Anishinabe refer to God as the Mystery. I use their term when I’m thinking about he/she/it/them (all at once…the Mystery defies pronouns)…but usually when I’m talking to other people I use the word God (except around Buddhists and Atheists, then I usually use the term “the Universe” or “Reality”)…I guess. I think maybe yes, the misconception of opposites IS the first misconception, but it doesn’t really get used as a weapon until it’s wielded by systems functioning under this misconception (that they are separate from other systems, and therefore must defend themselves from change because radical transformation=death for an enclosed system) which try to preserve their own “purity”, and even then it’s attachment that makes it really dangerous, an attachment to stasis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, sorry to express my main disagreement with you in a digression but I really want to point out stuff that you can use from all this. To continue from when I digressed, this lie detection technique is also a way to check what politicians are really up to. They usually throw out a decoy. They say something that they don't mean - or at least it is not their core plan.
.... The concept rather than the person... Did you hear the story of Christmas 1914??? In the trenches of WWI, there was a Christmas day truce starting Christmas eve. Into the silence of the night a single German solder sang Stille Nacht ( Silent Night a Christmas Song translated into many languages) Soon all the soldier were singing together from both sides. The next day, Christmas day, the soldiers from both sides met each other right in the combat zone. They showed each other pictures of their families and stuff. There was a real connection between then. On the 26th the war must go on, as it always must. But for 3 days the soldiers from both sides fired their guns only into the air. They could not kill each other now that they met and saw the humanness of one another. Eventually the higher ups got involved, a commanding officer was court-marshaled for fraternizing with the enemy and the soldiers were commanded to shoot AT the enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dude, my dad sings this antiwar christmas song about that incident like every year. (It starts, “My name is Jonny Tolliver, I come from
***************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000******************
6. Especially when societies, elites, and special interest groups want to take something (labor, resources, commodities, etc.), this whole process helps a society and individual soldiers, etc. to rationalize what they're doing to get said resources, commodities, etc. People fight over ideas and over stuff, but usually both.
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
"
Didn't Machiavelli come up with a set of rules for political leaders to gain control both from other manipulators of political "power" and from the masses?? They are basically a set of deceptions and they make me want to puke. One big one is like you say this play on opposites: to set up this "us" - "them" dynamic. Another, for instance, is to set yourself up as some sort of cult hero, make unachievable promises and use vague catchy phrases. Another is to play sort of dumb. A game Bush is good at. Anyway the list goes on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When I was 12-14 I couldn’t read Machiavelli because he just made me so angry. Then around 16 I started feeling like a spy or a codebreaker whenever I read his work…like I was a quarterback looking through the secret playbook of our rival team, figuring out all their secrets. I guess that’s still kind of the attraction. He writes pretty horrifying stuff, but if you’re well versed in his work you know all the dirty tricks a government might try to pull, and all the dirty ways they might try to justify it. But mostly now it just makes me sad. But even so I guess it’s important to know what the goons in office might try to pull….
***************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000*******************
7. Once a "war" of sorts has started and there is a history of aggression, violence on both sides, the process of making conceptual enemies out of actual people is aggravated, especially if you are the attacked party. Of course, both groups usually claim to be the threatened/attacked party, even if it's a perfectly ridiculous claim (see the parts above about the hero/victim stories). The emotional quality of the interaction is intensified, and religious and political loyalties are deepened and personalized. Religions and governments actually gain a lot of power by sacrificing some of their citizens in a conflict.
8. Right now the war system is the only game in town, kind of like global capitalism. This gives it a lot of power in and of itself. (Consider the military-industrial complex, most neo-conservative doctrine, and the "Realist" school of international relations). At the end of the day it's what backs up most international politics--the power of guns and the power of politics.
So what I'm suggesting, in the long run, is an overhaul of our logic and our aesthetics. I think such an overhaul would eventually change the nature of our language, our family life, our religion, our political system, our consumer culture and economic system, our environmental relations, and our international systems. Because even if these things don't objectively change, don't lose objective power, people would stop taking them seriously. They'd be bullies with guns, without any frilly meanings or dramas to pretty up the picture. And maybe that's a place to start. At the same time, it's hard to change the inner topography of your logic when you're constantly swimming in power structures that justify themselves through opposites thinking. Like if fish spoke to you, they'd have no word for water, all that kind of thing. So I don't really know how much hope there is for the project. But then again maybe an aesthetic revolution could slip in under the radar in a way a political revolution couldn't. I'm also starting to think that any form of revolution that does not overhaul the logic of opposites is pretty much doomed to failure. Anyway I'm still trying to work it out in my head. Tell me what you think of this. I'm trying to understand this whole hatred thing. It doesn't particularly make sense. All hatred of others is essentially a hatred of self. If I could I'd help build a peaceful world. I'm trying to find something with a chance of success.
Roasted Chickpeas,
Rachel
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
OK, so if I stay in line with myself above I will stay in disagreement, say that, yes if you take away the teeth of the dragon it would make it weaker but then 1) it would use its claws. It will find some other way to fight. I will also point out that this misconception of opposites is so basic that it is the actual author of form and as such it would be pretty unlikely that it could be successfully removed while staying in the world of form. Yes, maybe the present misconceptions could be replaced but since it is so key new ones will crop up. So I guess to transcend the misconception of opposites we must transcend the world of form, itself.
2) My assessment then is that the problem is a spiritual one; it has to do with people being too attached. That a spiritual revolution is in order and that people need to evolve to the next level of unattachment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rachel, Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:04 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, maybe it’s not just opposites-logic or attachment/fear that’s the problem, but the way they interact with each other. Like, mix baking soda and vinegar and BLAM—messy kitchen. I’m thinking the interaction itself needs to be examined. I do think that a spiritual revolution is in order, as you say. We might use different terms for talking about it but at the core I think we’re talking about the same thing. Because it is kind of necessary in order to move out of dysfunctional maps…we do need to be able to let go of our attachment to the maps we have, since it’s that attachment that’s made the maps dangerous. Now when it comes down to opposites-logic itself…can it be removed while staying in the world of form? I’m thinking about that. I don’t think the world of form is necessarily separate in any way from divinity, I mean there was this one time when I was fourteen that I found a rusty tin washer on the road, and when I picked it up and turned it over in my hands it was so suffused with the Mystery I felt I had stumbled on a sacred relic. For this one moment holding this washer its molecules were no less than the Mystery itself, shining through the matter, shining AS the matter, and for that matter the Mystery was everything that ever existed inside and outside space and time, and because the washer the Mystery and the Mystery was everything, it was also me and thus I was also the Mystery and I was also everything that had ever existed inside and outside of space and time. All in a little tin washer no bigger than a quarter. Pretty heavy stuff for a fourteen year old. It’s not the world so much as our perception of the world. But in another way you’re right. Opposites-logic is so deeply ingrained in our everyday experience—our language, world politics, daily life, economic relations, environmental relations, and usually religion too. When something’s that much a part of our lives, how can we even see outside it half the time? Maybe I’ve got to think on that some more. Anyway wow, this has been a really amazing and fruitful exchange. Thank you.
Now to sleep, as I am tired.
Pickles and onions!
Rachel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to disagree Rachel. Hope you are not mad. I will say that I could be wrong but if you think so I'd like to you to shoot holes in my arguments in a way that I can understand. I didn't plan on disagreeing when I started this - I actually thought it made sense at first. But this is what I came up with. I really like the way that you can deeply go into things. There really are not many people I know who are willing and capable to do this.
PLEASE,PLEASE, PLEASE, continue. Please stay in touch. I guess I am scared that I will lose you by disagreeing. Please stay my friend. Like I say I could be wrong. I could probably try to think about it some more but I would like to hear from you first. Please don't feel you have to accept my disagreement for me for any reason. I'd just like to brainstorm it out with you until we both feel about the same. Do write back.
**************** Rachel, Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000*******************
By the way, thanks for talking to me about suicides and whatnot...it's been really hard to find somebody to talk to. So thanks.
******************* Ed, Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:49 PM *******************
Of course of course of course of course of course. And thank you for acknowledging it and for validating my support. And anytime, please...
Hail Rocky Horror,
Ed
Mon, 17 Jan 2005 4:21 PM
Subject RE: I disagree on the meta level
Holy shit. I read what you said about systems theory and my heart started thumping right out of my ribcage. Ed, I really think you've got something here...I'm getting that feeling like when I've just found a missing piece to a jigsaw puzzle under the couch cushion. The idea of systems intentionally wielding edges, definitions, boundaries, and opposites as part of their normal self-maintenance systems...wow. Do you have any other information/thoughts/revelations/theories about systems theory? I really feel driven to try to dig up more on this subject...it feels important somehow. Anyway I'm still digesting everything you've said, I'll email you again about this, but I couldn't read any further without telling you how excited I was by your comments about systems theory. I also wanted to tell you I'm thinking about writing a monologue from your voice-perspective, and I wanted to ask your permission first. Said monologues will probably never see the light of day but even so, I wanted to ask.
Anyways I'll talk to you soon,
pickles and onions!
Rachel
single commented version: http://rachelletterssystemtheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/jan-1516-2005.htmloriginal reply: http://rachelletterssystemtheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/subject-wowdate-fri-14-jan-2005-123357.html
http://angeldynamics.blogspot.com/
http://angeldynamics.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment