You've presented me with a puzzle i find difficult to solve, how do i communicate with someone who does not reflect back understanding of what i am trying to say?
Re: "there is really no way to accurately describe experiences such as Krishnamurti's"
I said "If one wanted to get picky about it, one can say that about any experience."
Do you see that this allows for the fact that experience itself is not transmitted and that description is tenuous at best? Did you notice that i went on to explain the mechanics of transmission below when discussing metaphor?
I said "The ability to describe anything with words, as i mentioned above, rests on shared experience. There is no pointing to what cannot or has not be seen by another."
And in seeming rebuttal you said "You can convey the concept of "hot" to a child. He will only know what that is experientially by experiencing "hot" physically. An experience can't be conveyed, only a description of it. The experience is lost in the words of description."
Do you see that all you did here was illustrate my point? I even indicated how the loss of experience occurs via mapping later when i said, "the mapping process of perception and language and their distorting, deleting and generalizing activities." which are technical linguistic terms. That may not have been clear.
So when you say something really obvious like "All the technical words in the world are no different than the word "hot". They can't convey the experience of just what that is." as if i was saying that words do convey experience just as it is, i have to wonder what went wrong.
Perhaps this is clearer? By shared experience i mean A and B both develop independent experiences of 'hot' so that when A communicates hot from his experiential gestalt, B understands hot from her experiential gestalt, 'hot' being a common shared experience. In this, A's actual experience is not transmitted, but certain qualities are dependent on the similarity of B's experience.
Posts: 861 | Location: Over Here | Registered: 06 July 2002
You've presented me with a puzzle i find difficult to solve, how do i communicate with someone who does not reflect back understanding of what i am trying to say?
yeah, I get that a lot too.
You see, sometimes I wash do the ball under or the wooyiw er ioy sg a aiuwyg g ggyiog ghghh hh h
Originally posted by ric: Polycarp, Do you see that all you did here was illustrate my point? I even indicated how the loss of experience occurs via mapping later when i said, "the mapping process of perception and language and their distorting, deleting and generalizing activities." which are technical linguistic terms. That may not have been clear.
So when you say something really obvious like "All the technical words in the world are no different than the word "hot". They can't convey the experience of just what that is." as if i was saying that words do convey experience just as it is, i have to wonder what went wrong.
Perhaps this is clearer? By shared experience i mean A and B both develop independent experiences of 'hot' so that when A communicates hot from his experiential gestalt, B understands hot from her experiential gestalt, 'hot' being a common shared experience. In this, A's actual experience is not transmitted, but certain qualities are dependent on the similarity of B's experience.
Yep. A re-stating. It's not unusual for me to re-state things in many different ways. It's been shown to be beneficial. Re-statings narrow the focus. I attempt to make things as simple as possible and suitable for many levels of understanding.
An experience shared can be communicated to a degree. Qualities of the experience can be shared. If the experience is not shared, then it is only a pointing or even "gobeldy gook".
A trap is what I discussed with Michael, and which I nearly fell into which could be detrimental to members reading it is this:
In describing an experience of Be-ing, one who has not shared it will attempt to have the experience by following his own interpretation of what that experience must be as described. He will endeaver to obtain the "belief" rather than the experience. The belief of the interpretation never matches what is actually so. In trying to reach the belief, a falsity, one is distracted from the goal.
This can be said of any experience from swimming to horseback riding. One can readily test the words describing an experience and either agree or not.
An experience of riding a horse can easily be obtained. Find a horse, get on it, ride it. An interpretation of anothers experience is then validated or not to varying degrees. One has their own experience of it. Beliefs transmitted by another rider's experience are not detrimental. They don't prevent the experience of riding a horse from being obtained.
Experience of "Being" isn't like that. We can't readily go out, find "Being", and manifest an experience of it. Beliefs of another's experience can be detrimental. One looks to duplicate the "belief" rather than having the experience itself. It can't be done that way.
Pointings are usually used, not descriptions.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
I'm not sure either Ric or Polycarp will want a third party to interrupt what is a great discussion on the communication of what philosopers call the "primitives" of experience.
Who was it, Wittgenstein, about the color yellow... How do you communicate that to someone who has never seen it? "Well, its kinda like red, but lighter and its a little like green, but paler and brighter."
Primitives of experience are considered irreducible to more basic terms....they are the building blocks.
Perhaps enlightenment can't be verbally communicated in terms of other experiences because it is a primitive? "Well, its kinda like unity, but there's still a "me', and its kinda like pure being, but there's nothing there.." Then the teacher says, "not even close!"
I know in the Zen tradition, there are so many "experiences" meditators go through!!! Many of them seem when they bloom in the consciousness , like the Enlightenment that everyone wants so much...! The experiences are somewhat deceptively self-validating...unless the practicioner has a well-developed caution.
Traditionally the pitfalls of premature ersatz Enlightenment are so well known, that teachers exist almost solely to act as gate-keepers and error detectors and the stories I related above from my own history illustrate them in those roles.
But the real thing, the real teacher-validated experience, is it self-validating?
Most of the time. But I've heard of cases where the teacher sanctioned experiences that the meditator wasn't aware of the significance..
In any case, it is very very easy to see a person's state fairly quickly...one doesn't have to resort to testing phrases.
As a concrete example: Suppose you walked into the teachers room, did your prostrations, and then sat, glowing with Enlightenment, and completely indifferent as to whether the teacher thought you were or not....after all, you had "Arrived" and you knew it!!
Then the teacher, took one look at you, turned his back, and started paying bills, or balancing invoices for the kitchen, or running over the work party assignments.
Time passes, and you keep sitting there, and the teacher keeps working at his paperwork. Maybe he calls the attendent to bring him some tea, but forgets to have a cup delivered for you....
Finally, since you can't yell, "Hey You!", you get up and silently do your prostrations and depart!
What went on there? What was the communication of experience? Was there validation?
I know, it happened to me! By two different teachers!
Originally posted by Michael F. Murphy: I'm not sure either Ric or Polycarp will want a third party to interrupt what is a great discussion on the communication of what philosopers call the "primitives" of experience.
Who was it, Wittgenstein, about the color yellow... How do you communicate that to someone who has never seen it? "Well, its kinda like red, but lighter and its a little like green, but paler and brighter."
Primitives of experience are considered irreducible to more basic terms....they are the building blocks. -------------------------------------
Yes.
----------------------------------------
Perhaps enlightenment can't be verbally communicated in terms of other experiences because it is a primitive? "Well, its kinda like unity, but there's still a "me', and its kinda like pure being, but there's nothing there.." Then the teacher says, "not even close!"
---------------------------------
Perhaps Michel, they were the shadows of thought beginning to intrude into the experience in an attempt to maintain the experience...the mind loves "definitions" And we can give meaning after meaning, description after description after it occurs. Don't believe your own descriptions!
Perhaps the best course, and the truest one when asked to describe the experience is to say nothing. Most aren't content with that sort of response
----------------------------------------
I know in the Zen tradition, there are so many "experiences" meditators go through!!! Many of them seem when they bloom in the consciousness , like the Enlightenment that everyone wants so much...! The experiences are somewhat deceptively self-validating...unless the practicioner has a well-developed caution.
Traditionally the pitfalls of premature ersatz Enlightenment are so well known, that teachers exist almost solely to act as gate-keepers and error detectors and the stories I related above from my own history illustrate them in those roles. ----------------------------------------- A gatekeeper, is beneficial. I really can't say I am enlightened or not enlightened. I do know I had an experience that brought about a life shift. And life remains basically the same. Reactions to it are different.
I used to test emotions. Purposely put myself in situations that I knew would trigger very strong ones, particularly fear. I was amazed at the ease with which they could be dissipated.
I no longer do this. What comes before me to handle I handle, what doesn't I don't. I do enjoy moaning and groaning about things and so I do it. I no longer get upset about what I'm moaning and groaning about in an emotional context other than amusement at my own goings on about things.
I can dislplay vocally or physically appropriate behaviors as a situation calls for, and the underlying amusement is usually there.
I don't care for the policies of Bush, and get very vocal about it. I think they harm people. And they will either change or they won't. An emotional charge isn't there unless I allow it. It is something to do that may lessen the harm being done or it won't.
I won't sit under a tree and smilingly gaze out from it's shade. That doesn't interest me. There is no participation in life in that. Am I enlightened? I've never had a teacher to tell me whether I am or am not. I'm content. A gatekeeper is beneficial.
----------------------------------------- But the real thing, the real teacher-validated experience, is it self-validating?
Most of the time. But I've heard of cases where the teacher sanctioned experiences that the meditator wasn't aware of the significance..
In any case, it is very very easy to see a person's state fairly quickly...one doesn't have to resort to testing phrases.
As a concrete example: Suppose you walked into the teachers room, did your prostrations, and then sat, glowing with Enlightenment, and completely indifferent as to whether the teacher thought you were or not....after all, you had "Arrived" and you knew it!!
Then the teacher, took one look at you, turned his back, and started paying bills, or balancing invoices for the kitchen, or running over the work party assignments.
Time passes, and you keep sitting there, and the teacher keeps working at his paperwork. Maybe he calls the attendent to bring him some tea, but forgets to have a cup delivered for you....
Finally, since you can't yell, "Hey You!", you get up and silently do your prostrations and depart!
What went on there? What was the communication of experience? Was there validation?
I know, it happened to me! By two different teachers!
Were you still "glowing with enlightenment" when you left the room?"
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
This message has been edited. Last edited by: polycarp,
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
I no longer do this. What comes before me to handle I handle, what doesn't I don't. I do enjoy moaning and groaning about things and so I do it. I no longer get upset about what I'm moaning and groaning about in an emotional context other than amusement at my own goings on about things.
I can dislplay vocally or physically appropriate behaviors as a situation calls for, and the underlying amusement is usually there.
________________________________________________ I don't care for the policies of Bush, and get very vocal about it. I think they harm people. And they will either change or they won't. An emotional charge isn't there unless I allow it. It is something to do that may lessen the harm being done or it won't. --Polycarp ________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Were you still "glowing with enlightenment" when you left the room?" --Polycarp ________________________________________________
Originally posted by Boorflensje: [QUOTE]You've presented me with a puzzle i find difficult to solve, how do i communicate with someone who does not reflect back understanding of what i am trying to say?
quote:
yeah, I get that a lot too.
quote:
You see, sometimes I wash do the ball under or the wooyiw er ioy sg a aiuwyg g ggyiog ghghh hh h
Dit is ABSOLUUT niet grappig, en wordt NIET gewaardeerd.
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Originally posted by Jinxer: I have to be honest with you, I'm not a big fan of Taoism. It's a wonderful philosophy and beautiful thing to pulse through your mind in meditation, but practically, it is useless.
Taoism preaches, effectively, inaction and non-resistance.
**This interpretation, I suspect, is a common mis-interpretation. Non-resistance and inaction are two entirely different things. The non-resistance refers to an openess to seeing reality or life as it actually is, as opposed to continually living in ideological worlds. It doesn't mean one doesn't act when life reveals a need for action. It's about responding to life as it is rather than according to some belief system.
Gerry - Thanks for the earlier kind words.
Regards - Howard
"Thought works by conditioning. It has to get conditioned. You need conditioning to learn a language, to learn how to write, or to do all sorts of things. When the conditioning gets too rigid, though, it won't change when it should." - David Bohm
Posts: 1211 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 16 August 2002
Originally posted by Michael F. Murphy: [ I can dislplay vocally or physically appropriate behaviors as a situation calls for, and the underlying amusement is usually there.
--Polycarp
________________________________________________
Its a little like acting at being "normal"?
[/QUOTE]
Dear Michael, LOL! Sort of yes and sort of no. The initial emotional reaction, anger, fear, etc. is truely there; it isn't "erased", and letting it play itself out isn't the wisest course unless it is. Emotions can be dissipated while retaining the actions associated with them for communication purposes.
We communicate not only in words; also by bodily actions and expression. A communication on a blog, for instance, loses much in words alone. A display of emotion and body language associated with words is conducive to communication. It's benefical for all parties involved.
Do people know I'm usually amused no matter what the emotional display is? Probably not. I display the "normal" reaction rather than one of amusement. I sense you do this from time to time
Do I dissipate all emotions and then merely act them out as a means of communication? Not at all. "There is no harm in emotionally induced giggles, for instance. When I laugh, it is with full emotional intensity.
ACTING: As Shakespeare said, "we are all players". Many believe they are the character, rather than the actor within the play. Who does not "act out" their part in life?
WHO is the Actor?: The "macho" man creates his character and acts out the role, does he not? Problem is, he thinks he is the character he created rather than an actor within the play. Sort of like that. It bodes well to remember who created the character. This sort of thing colors how we see things.
Living Joyously: A monk of absolute propriety and serious demeanor can inwardly have the giggles.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Originally posted by Jinxer: I have to be honest with you, I'm not a big fan of Taoism. It's a wonderful philosophy and beautiful thing to pulse through your mind in meditation, but practically, it is useless.
Taoism preaches, effectively, inaction and non-resistance.
**This interpretation, I suspect, is a common mis-interpretation. Non-resistance and inaction are two entirely different things. The non-resistance refers to an openess to seeing reality or life as it actually is, as opposed to continually living in ideological worlds. It doesn't mean one doesn't act when life reveals a need for action. It's about responding to life as it is rather than according to some belief system.
Gerry - Thanks for the earlier kind words.
Regards - Howard
Thank YOU Howard - for all your thought provoking posts
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Living Joyously: A monk of absolute propriety and serious demeanor can inwardly have the giggles.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
________________________________________________
So, it is! People expect such gravitas.....as if "holiness" necessitated long, doleful faces!
I remember when I first came to a Trappist monastery (a very long time ago) that shall remain unnamed! The abbot, Fr B., came bounding up the steps to meet me. Big smiles, lots of hearty laughter... Good man! ________________________________________________
Do people know I'm usually amused no matter what the emotional display is? Probably not. I display the "normal" reaction rather than one of amusement. I sense you do this from time to time ---Polycarp ________________________________________________
Yes, you are perceptive!
There is an old latin phrase from Lucilius Gaius I believe:
Quantum est in rebus inane
How much folly there is in human affairs!
I have been a little sick lately, so apologize for being so late to answer!
It's rare I find someone who comprehends internal glimpses of myself. You have been on the path for awhile.
Sue, an administrator on this forum, should be sending you my e-mail address.
Take care of yourself.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
________________________________________________
Its like looking in a mirror!
To my surprise, I didn't have the two books (one green, one yellow if memory serves) from the "monk of Mt Athos". Nor could I find my Staretz Silouan. I don't know when I gave them away. I used to have "Way of a Pilgrim" in a couple of translations, but those are gone too...
Anyway, the Philokalia and the Art of Prayer were where they were supposed to be, so them and two small paperback books on the Desert Fathers, plus some materials from the holy monks of the Camaldolese are good reading. I remember reading "Alone With God" and it affected me at the time, like The Seven Story Mountain affected other young men.
I also found a book by Fr. Willigis Jager who is a Catholic who has attempted to further "Christian Zen". He even has people doing Christian koan practice.
"Way of the Pilgrim is a Delight"! The beginning of the Jesus Prayer becoming a common eastern Christian practice. Quite an adventure there.
Readings from the Philokalia were often read at supper, and I became fascinated with them upon first hearing. It isn't an easy book to find in Denver! My book budget is very limited, and even the library doesn't have it.
I've not heard of Fr. Jager. His people are fortunate indeed if they are doing Christian koan practice.
There are unimagineable depths to Christian teachings and people seem content to merely dip their toes in the water rather than learning how to swim! Now, wouldn't that be a baptism!
Do take care of yourself Michael. Illness usually isn't a joy even for a monk!
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
There are unimagineable depths to Christian teachings and people seem content to merely dip their toes in the water rather than learning how to swim! Now, wouldn't that be a baptism!
Do take care of yourself Michael. Illness usually isn't a joy even for a monk!
Susan still hasn't contact me...well, she probably will eventually!
Yes, you are so right. Many Christians seem unaware of the true depths and resources of their Faith. It is frustrating sometimes!! I think they fear to swim perhaps, for fear of drowning in that great Ocean of Love. I dunno.
Illness is okay, its just the burden it puts on caregivers that worries me the most!
There are unimagineable depths to Christian teachings and people seem content to merely dip their toes in the water rather than learning how to swim! Now, wouldn't that be a baptism!
Do take care of yourself Michael. Illness usually isn't a joy even for a monk!
Susan still hasn't contact me...well, she probably will eventually!
Yes, you are so right. Many Christians seem unaware of the true depths and resources of their Faith. It is frustrating sometimes!! I think they fear to swim perhaps, for fear of drowning in that great Ocean of Love. I dunno.
Illness is okay, its just the burden it puts on caregivers that worries me th
Beliefs of another's experience can be detrimental. One looks to duplicate the "belief" rather than having the experience itself. It can't be done that way.
, like the Enlightenment that everyone wants so much...! The experiences are somewhat deceptively self-validating...unless the practicioner has a well-developed caution.
