Vinaire's Blog
My daughter seems to be looking forward to the possibilities in life… maybe there is a bit of apprehension.
Now that I have lived life somewhat, it is time to review it.
My daughter’s expression is one of curiosity… what is this life all about?
I seem to be happy and simply living the life.
.
La atención no óptima es un indicador poderoso de dónde debería uno mirar.
La atención nos ayuda a hacernos conscientes de las cosas. Normalmente nos es posible dirigir nuestra atención libremente y ponerla donde sea que queramos. Éste es el estado óptimo de la atención.
La atención cae hacia un nivel no óptimo cuando se mantiene regresando a una misma cosa. Por ejemplo, cuando uno no se siente bien físicamente la atención se queda más o menos fija en el cuerpo.
La atención tampoco es óptima cuando no se puede enfocar. Por ejemplo, cuando uno pierde su trabajo, el futuro repentinamente se vuelve incierto y la atención se dispersa entre muchas cosas.
CUANDO LA ATENCIÓN NO ES ÓPTIMA, YA SEA QUE SE ENCUENTRE FIJA O DISPERSA, SIEMPRE HAY UNA SITUACIÓN O CONDICIÓN QUE NECESITA RESOLVERSE.
Entonces, la atención no óptima puede ser usada como indicador para determinar dónde mirar más cercanamente. Uno puede entonces descubrir inconsistencias que necesitan resolverse. Una inconsistencia sería algo que no tiene sentido. Los siguientes pasos pueden ser útiles:
Simplemente hazte consciente de las inconsistencias. Luego repite los pasos anteriores para cada área de inconsistencia hasta que nada esté escondido o suprimido y la atención esté libre y estable.
En ausencia de un compañero puedes hacer este ejercicio por ti mismo. El guía puede ayudar al estudiante de la siguiente manera:
(A) Repasa la sección de teoría con tu estudiante.
(B) Haz que el estudiante haga los ejercicios en secuencia.
ESTOS SON LOS EJERCICIOS PARA KHTK 5. UN EJERCICIO ESTÁ COMPLETO CUANDO EL ESTUDIANTE ESTÁ SATISFECHO DE HABER REALIZADO TODOS LOS PASOS
.
Most religions and philosophies stop at SELF as the ultimate source. A person, soul, spirit, etc., are examples of self, but then, in their turn, they are thought to be created by a more basic self called God. The basic self is considered to be eternal. It has neither beginning nor end. It cannot be described. The idea of looking beyond self is not even entertained.
What is self really?
Self is so intimate to one, yet one wonders what self truly is. Self may only be evaluated if there is something else of comparable magnitude. Let’s look at self as knowable compared to unknowable (beyond consideration). This is what Buddha did and found that self is not fixed. “Self is in flux like anything else.” said Buddha, “And furthermore, self may be completely extinguished.”
So what is the concept of self that Buddha had in mind?
To Buddha, self was a manifestation. Like any manifestation, self appeared, underwent changes, and ultimately disappeared. It belonged to the knowable universe, which is the universe of consideration. But as self seems to underlie all considerations, it might be extending back into the unknowable too.
The Self forms the interface between knowable and unknowable.
Self interfaces with the knowable universe through consideration. Its interface with unknowable has to be by means other than consideration. It may act something like the “squaring function” that converts imaginary into real numbers.
Self may act to convert what is unknowable into knowable considerations.
This conversion alters what is unknowable into knowable. This is where “intuition” seems to lie. Intuition occurs out of the blue. This phenomenon is beyond logic. Logic is essentially the association of existing considerations.
The considerations persist as being knowable. But, recognition of the true nature of consideration might dissolve them back into unknowable. The unknowable may be looked upon as the state of deep understanding remaining after the cessation of all considerations. This state is recognized as NIRVANA in Buddhism.
The unknowable may be looked upon as an indescribable state of “no form, no consideration.”
In the knowable universe, the core of a human being may be considered to be the self. The rest of the being may be looked upon as layers of considerations enveloping the self. Please see Thinking & Thought. These layers filter what is being perceived. They judge what is there and pass it as perception.
A human being is the basic self covered by layers of considerations that filter and modify incoming perceptions.
As the filters interpret perceptions instead of simplifying them, the perceptions gains persistence. The persistence may gradually become so strong that it appears as the solid physical universe. This is also the self being represented as a physical body.
Perception, when continually interpreted, become increasingly persistent to a point of solidity we know as the physical body, and its extension, the physical universe.
Thus, it may be said that the physical universe is being generated by the very nature of these filters that are continually “judging.” These filters constitute the very nature of the being. Thus, as long as the being continues to be “judgmental” knowingly or unknowingly, the problem of the physical universe will remain.
The deeply judgmental nature of the being is generating the physical universe and all its problems and situations.
But, if one wants to dissolve the problems and situations that make up this universe, then all one has to do is to stop being judgmental and start looking at things for what they are. Some forms of judgment are anticipating what is there, or being resistive to what is there. This is covered in the KHTK essays.
One may start dissolving problems and situations by looking at them non-judgmentally for what they are.
Interestingly enough, looking per KHTK brings into view the filters that the self is looking through. As these layers of filters come into view they start to dissolve. The person then starts on a journey toward regaining his or her awareness as the basic self.
The basic self is aware without being judgmental.
Ultimately, the self itself may dissolve leaving behind an indescribably deep understanding that cannot be appreciated otherwise.
The unknowable may be appreciated only after the self is dissolved.
.
NOTE (added 7/20/12):
The center of gravity of an object is essentially the resultant of all the force vectors acting on the molecules of that object. Similarly, a center of consciousness may be looked upon as the resultant of all mental forces and energies associated with you through awareness at that moment. This center of such mental forces and energies may be called SELF.
A center of gravity is relatively stable compared to the moving particles of that object. Similarly, SELF may appear relatively stable compared to all the mental forces and energies, which are in a flux.
.
Reference: Religion
Brahman is a concept central to Hinduism, yet a great deal of mystery surrounds it. It is stated to be an actuality beyond the reality of this universe, which is impossible to describe. The mental discipline and effort required to experience Brahman appears to be daunting indeed.
Jnana Yoga prescribes discrimination as the process to comprehend this concept. By saying “neti, neti (not this, not that)” one can finally arrive at the realization of Brahman. It is said that to one who has realized Brahman the world appears as a “mansion of mirth.” One can then see through the reality of this world as if it were an “illusion.”
With all these hints let us examine the concept of Brahman using the modern vocabulary available to us.
To a mathematical mind, Brahman would be like a zero where this universe is concerned. Zero is an absence of quantity. An absolute zero would be an absence of all quantity. The universe is reducible to matter, energy, space, and time, all of which are quantities. Thus, Brahman can said to be the absence of all matter, all energy, all space, and all time. More precisely, then,
Brahman is an actuality that has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, and no location in space, or in time.
Furthermore, zero is that point from which all quantities are measured. Thus, Brahman can said to be that point from which the very nature of Space, Time, Energy, and Matter is postulated. By postulate, we mean, something put there as the basis or foundation. More precisely, then,
Brahman is the absolute potential.
Now, there is nothing except Brahman. Thus, the capability to postulate and consider would be inherent to Brahman. This infinite power to be Cause is called Sakti in Hinduism. It is difficult to speak of Sakti as separate from Brahman because any separation first requires the consideration of Space. It is also difficult to assign sequence to Brahman and Sakti because any sequence requires the consideration of Time. More precisely, then,
Sakti is Brahman as infinite cause.
We think of God as a Super Being separate and remote from us. But this may be looked upon as the considerations of matter, energy, space, and time combined with Brahman or Sakti.
Is God one? Brahman or Sakti, certainly, cannot be described quantitatively as being one. “God is One” is not an inherent condition. It is a consideration added to the actuality of Brahman or Sakti after adding the basic considerations of matter, energy, space, and time.
It is not surprising that the differentiation among Brahman, Sakti and the considerations of matter, energy, space, time, etc. are not easy to grasp.
A problem persists as a problem as long as it is not viewed in its entirety. The moment we view a problem thoroughly it ceases to be a problem because it reduces to an understanding. Similarly, a reality persists as a reality as long as it is not viewed in its entirety. The moment we view it thoroughly we recognize it to be made up of certain considerations that we hold in common.
Thus, reality may be changed if we can only muster up enough courage to view it thoroughly, and recognize our own considerations leading up to it. But the fact of the matter is that when one is very much attached to a reality, changing that reality would be a terrible thing indeed.
Is God zero, one, or infinity? One can answer that question only when one is willing to examine it thoroughly, along with a thorough examination of one’s own considerations involved, from a non-attached viewpoint. Reality or considerations may be changed, but the inherent condition or actuality can never be changed.
Descartes is often regarded as the first thinker to provide a philosophical framework for the natural sciences as these began to develop.
I have great admiration for Descartes for both his mathematical and philosophical works.
Emily Grosholz. Cartesian method and the problem of reduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198242506. “But contemporary debate has tended to…understand [Cartesian method] merely as the ‘method of doubt’…I want to define Descartes’s method in broader terms…to trace its impact on the domains of mathematics and physics as well as metaphysics.”
I understand Descartes Method to be a lot more than just a method of doubt. His method helps determine points of certainties.
In his Discourse on the Method, he attempts to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one can know as true without any doubt. To achieve this, he employs a method called hyperbolical/metaphysical doubt, also sometimes referred to as methodological skepticism: he rejects any ideas that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge.
That is a wonderful goal set by Descartes for himself. My personal passion is to make knowledge simpler to understand, starting from fundamental ideas that are on very firm footing. I’ll be ecstatic if I can spot a gap or inconsistency in Descartes’ reasoning. My object for doing that would be to discover possible simplicities.
Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: “I think, therefore I am”). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting; therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence. “The simple meaning of the phrase is that if one is skeptical of existence, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist.”
Yes, one can be certain about the existence of thought. I wrote the essay The Nature of Thought to express my ideas on this subject. I can see that thought cannot be separated from me if “me” is looked upon as part of thought. Therefore, “I” would exist as thought. But I doubt Descartes’ conclusion that “I” is the doer and that thought originates from “I”. It is quite possible that essence of thought is independent of “I”, and “I” may simply act on it the way a magnifying glass acts on rays of light.
Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is what he does, and his power must come from his essence. Descartes defines “thought” (cogitatio) as “what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it”. Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.
“Thought is visualization. The purpose of thought is to give form to the unknowable.” The essence of thought could come from some unknowable dimension that is independent of “I”. Thought, “I”, and body exist in the dimension of form. A “thinking thing” could be a “modulating thing” that may be modulating part of some “dimension of no form” into this dimension of form. There is no reason to believe that “thought” and “I” are the fundamental principles of existence.
To further demonstrate the limitations of the senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the Wax Argument. He considers a piece of wax; his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still the same piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he should put aside the senses. He must use his mind. Descartes concludes:
“And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind.”
One is looking at change. Form changes. Is there a constant underlying this changing form perceived by the senses? Descartes concludes it is the faculty of judgment. This is what I have referred to as the ability to consider. But does this ability reside in this dimension of form? I doubt that it does.
In this manner, Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. In the third and fifth Meditation, he offers an ontological proof of a benevolent God (through both the ontological argument and trademark argument). Because God is benevolent, he can have some faith in the account of reality his senses provide him, for God has provided him with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him. From this supposition, however, he finally establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge about the world based on deduction and perception. In terms of epistemology therefore, he can be said to have contributed such ideas as a rigorous conception of foundationalism and the possibility that reason is the only reliable method of attaining knowledge.
Perceptions originate from one’s consideration of what is out there. Perceptions on the surface are changing all the time, but the considerations that underlie them become more and more persistent in their form as one dives deeper into thought. But even those deepest considerations are, ultimately, arbitrary. It is the consistency of such considerations which makes them so persistent. Deduction is simply diving deeper toward increasingly persistent (unchanging) considerations. If there is God, it does not lie in this dimension of form. Viewing from this dimension, God is simply unknowable. Any speculations or lasting considerations about God are simply modulations of thought. Knowledge could be a rigorous system consistent within itself, even when the foundations are arbitrary. Those foundations have only to be firmly set. From then on it is consistency that forms the basis of reason.
In Descartes’s system, knowledge takes the form of ideas, and philosophical investigation is the contemplation of these ideas. This concept would influence subsequent internalist movements as Descartes’s epistemology requires that a connection made by conscious awareness will distinguish knowledge from falsity. As a result of his Cartesian doubt, he viewed rational knowledge as being “incapable of being destroyed” and sought to construct an unshakable ground upon which all other knowledge can be based. The first item of unshakable knowledge that Descartes argues for is the aforementioned cogito, or thinking thing.
There is nothing fundamentally true or false. But there are fundamentals regarded as true because of their firmness. Any relative inconsistency with respect to those fundamentals, and their derivatives, would then be regarded as falsity. None of the consistency, which underlies reasoning itself, can ever be destroyed because its power comes from the firmness of the fundamentals. Descartes views the premise of “thinking thing” as that fundamental firmness, even when it can be shown to be arbitrary. The fundamentals are only as firm as one considers them to be.
Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that God would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the “propensity” to believe that such ideas are caused by material things.
The firmness of the external world is simply a reflection of the firmness of one’s fundamental beliefs that one may not be fully aware of. Hence they seem to come involuntarily. Thus, the external word seems to provide evidence to an internal “programming” that one is not aware of.
Descartes was also known for his work in producing the Cartesian Theory of Fallacies. This can be most easily explored using the statement: “This statement is a lie.” While it is most commonly referred to as a paradox, the Cartesian Theory of Fallacies states that at any given time a statement can be both true and false simultaneously because of its contradictory nature. The statement is true in its fallacy. Thus, Descartes developed the Cartesian Theory of Fallacies, which greatly influenced the thinking of the time. Many would-be philosophers were trying to develop inexplicable statements of seeming fact, however, this laid rumors of such a proposition impossible. Many philosophers believe that when Descartes formulated his Theory of Fallacies, he intended to be lying, which in and of itself embodies the theory.
A problem persists as long as one is not aware of the solution. Confusion persists as long as one is not aware of the stable data. The moment one becomes aware of the solution or the stable data, problems and confusions disappear. Thus, underlying anything that is persisting, there is something unknown. It is the absence of that knowledge, which produces the persistance. This is how the Cartesian Theory of Fallacies may be best explained.
The Cartesian approach is a shorter version of my favorite “neti, neti.”
.
