T'san: The Mind of Absolute Trust

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not calling you thick; I just can't get through to you. It makes me angry, so I prefer to drop it. There are more reasonable people around that you can have a discussion with.

Here's something on Wittgenstein and Zen--the kind of discussion I'd like to be able to conduct, had I the nous (naturally my intuitive grasp of the subject is impeccable): http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew23260.htm

Come on, Bosse... I think that when it comes to Zen you take some of my views as personal attacks. I know I stand to lose from you not participating, because you're one of the people I enjoy most reading on this site.

If I sound abrasive is because I felt your one liners here were somewhat condescending. Yes, my initial comment was provocative, but not personally so. Or, at least, I hope.

Many of those that I enjoy reading here appreciate Zen perspectives. I would like to understand why, so I try to post my (admittedly disorganized) thoughts about why I disagree.

Edit - See? I can resist provocations. Rare, but possible!

Originally posted by Palynka
Many of those that I enjoy reading here appreciate Zen perspectives. I would like to understand why, so I try to post my (admittedly disorganized) thoughts about why I disagree.

Ach...Another time. My meds are calling.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]If someone thinks that getting into the zone is a fluke—then it will be for them.

Nicely put. I guess you put it more diplomatically than I did (not surprisingly 🙂) but I think we actually have similar views. The difference being that it works for you, but not for me.

When I was younger, I used to play basketball for a club. Many players had ...[text shortened]... us post. Or tried not to. I appreciate the subjectiveness of that line of thought.[/b]

I am not sure I know what this "zone" stuff means - I am guessing it's about something similar as that state of mind this thread is about? Anyway, not being sure what it means I can't comment on it either, but there were some things you said later that caught my attention:

Thinking about it, this is actually very close to the concept of faith. If you have it, you'll feel and understand the divine, because you're predisposed to it. But for those that do not have the same faith belief, then believers' descriptions of their divine experiences are meaningless to you.

That occurred to me earlier as well. It can be terribly frustrating when you try to understand what someone else is talking about, and all you get is "if you try it, you'll know what I mean" (and if you then go on to say that you have tried, but still don't know, you'll get "maybe you didn't try enough" or "maybe you tried it the wrong way" or something like that). The problem is that there are things you can't describe in words, numbers or diagrams. What's interesting is that we still try, and that those who have had a similar experience will usually recognise this even though the words can't really describe the experience. As much as I hate it when people who have a faith I don't share start using their "Secret Decoder Ring", it may not always be avoidable.

I find dichotomy essential to language and, therefore, essential to thought.

While this rings true for me personally as I am a very verbal thinker, the second part doesn't necessarily follow from the first one. Thought doesn't always take the form of language (it does for me most of the time, but not always; and for some people it rarely does at all). Other forms of thought may not have the same need for dichotomy.

As I said earlier in this thread, I am not willing to give up dualism. My thinking is, and probably always will be, very analytical and based in dualism. I learn by analysis and logical thought. During "zen moments", I wouldn't say that I think - at least not in the way I usually understand the word - or learn. I may think about them or learn from them later, but while I am in that state of mind, it's pure experience or being. (Interestingly, I have to use dualism to describe this, and I experience it almost as two different worlds - the dualism between dualism and non-dualism.) It's deeply meaningful for myself on a personal level, but I wouldn't claim that it's meaningful beyond that; although if it happens in music therapy, I do believe it is meaningful for the person I am working with as well, and observers can often see the difference in the quality of the contact.

Many years ago I read a book by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (which is a very cool name) called "The Flow Experience" (not sure if that's the exact English title, I read it in German) which I found very interesting. I haven't read much about zen, but I think he's talking about the same state of mind. But (as far as I remember) he doesn't attempt to use language to express non-dualism; he rather describes the phenomenon and when, how and why it occurs. It may be more accessible to dualistic thinkers, although of course it won't give you the experience either.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I am not sure I know what this "zone" stuff means - I am guessing it's about something similar as that state of mind this thread is about? Anyway, not being sure what it means I can't comment on it either, but there were some things you said later that caught my attention:

[b]Thinking about it, this is actually very close to the concept of faith. If you h though of course it won't give you the experience either.

Many years ago I read a book by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (which is a very cool name) called "The Flow Experience" (not sure if that's the exact English title, I read it in German) which I found very interesting. I haven't read much about zen, but I think he's talking about the same state of mind.

Yes, he is. “Flow” and “being in the zone” are the same as well. So many diffeent people have come at it from so many different angles.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Many years ago I read a book by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (which is a very cool name) called "The Flow Experience" (not sure if that's the exact English title, I read it in German) which I found very interesting. I haven't read much about zen, but I think he's talking about the same state of mind.

Yes, he is. “Flow” and “being in the zone” are the same as well. So many diffeent people have come at it from so many different angles.[/b]

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi
How could you spell that?? I bet you copy/pasted.

Yes, he is. “Flow” and “being in the zone” are the same as well. So many diffeent people have come at it from so many different angles.
Smoking THC included? I guess that's why there's such a strong lobby against light drugs. They don't want us to see the truth.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]Mihály Csíkszentmihályi
How could you spell that?? I bet you copy/pasted. [/b]

Yes. 😳 Hungarian spelling is very logical though, so if you remember how to pronounce the name and know a bit about Hungarian spelling, you don't really need to remember the spelling. But I would probably have forgotten the accent on the first i in "Csíkszentmihály".

Originally posted by Nordlys
Yes. 😳 Hungarian spelling is very logical though, so if you remember how to pronounce the name and know a bit about Hungarian spelling, you don't really need to remember the spelling. But I would probably have forgotten the accent on the first i in "Csíkszentmihály".

I missed those hungarian classes... They were useful, afterall... I'm feeling dumb now. Is it normal to know hungarian spelling?
You're from Norway? Been there last year.. great place but the booze is a little expensive...

Originally posted by serigado
I missed those hungarian classes... They were useful, afterall... I'm feeling dumb now. Is it normal to know hungarian spelling?
You're from Norway? Been there last year.. great place but the booze is a little expensive...

Er, no, it's probably not normal to know Hungarian spelling unless you are Hungarian or live in Hungary. But I love languages, so when I had a concert in Budapest, I used that as an excuse to learn a bit about the language.

I am German, but have been living in Norway for about eight years. Luckily I don't drink alcohol. 😉

(To get a little bit back on topic, moving to Northern Norway has given me many zen moments due to the aurora borealis.)

Originally posted by Nordlys
I am not sure I know what this "zone" stuff means - I am guessing it's about something similar as that state of mind this thread is about? Anyway, not being sure what it means I can't comment on it either, but there were some things you said later that caught my attention:

[b]Thinking about it, this is actually very close to the concept of faith. If you h though of course it won't give you the experience either.

[/b]The problem is that there are things you can't describe in words, numbers or diagrams. What's interesting is that we still try, and that those who have had a similar experience will usually recognise this even though the words can't really describe the experience.

Thanks for that.

I find the same things frustrating that you do, and in lieu of veering too close to it, I will retire.

I thought of something, though, the other day. If one were to ask what is the single thing that underlies the universe, serigado, being a physicist, would likely say “energy” (in fact, he has). I, on the other hand, being a poet, might say something like, “lightning in water, deep drum”. Only someone who expects me to be literal—or who insists that I be literal, when I refuse—will find fault with my answer vis-à-vis serigado’s.

Lightning in water, deep drum,
bright bees in the heart-blood thrum,
windfire through the wild flute sing:
Blessing, bliss, well-being bring—

Be well.

EDIT: And only a closet literalist would assume that I take my own metaphors literally.

Originally posted by vistesd
The problem is that there are things you can't describe in words, numbers or diagrams. What's interesting is that we still try, and that those who have had a similar experience will usually recognise this even though the words can't really describe the experience.

Thanks for that.

I find the same things frustrating that you do, and in lieu o ...[text shortened]... thrum,
windfire through the wild flute sing:
Blessing, bliss, well-being bring—

Be well.[/b]

serigado, being a physicist, would likely say “energy”

You can bet on it! Everything is about a Lagrangians and symmetries.
I recently studied group theory... I was really astonished when I found out the mathematical beauty of the complexity in the Universe. It was a true revelation, kind of when I found out about Principle of Least Action.
When we get to know everything we see follows such simple and pure rules, I can only be sure if there's some entity that created Universe, it surely can't be the same one religions profess. Our religion's Gods are simply excessively ... human and mundane.

Here are some sentences of standard subject-predicate form in English. The rhetorical question is: what kind of dualism is implied by these sentences, if our language actually reflects a dualist/dichotomous reality?
_______________________________

I will live my own life.

I am a dualist by nature.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The universe exists.

I have a mind and a body.

Do you hear that?

There are two sides in a game of chess.

The map is not the territory.

Every effect has a cause.

Do you believe in free will?

That makes me angry.

This is just part of the whole.

Everything is energy.

What do you think?

Pay attention.

I am aware of that.

I am.

Relax.

_____________________________________

In general, I find Seng T’san to be very practical in terms of dealing with the limitations of language. It seems impossible to conceptualize without separating, comparing, abstracting. Our language reflects that activity. Of itself, well and good, useful. I have no quarrel with that at all. But when we confuse that activity with the underlying reality, we end up with such dualisms as mind (or spirit)-body, energy-matter, being-nonbeing, universe-God.

In the just-being-aware that I have described in several ways, one lets go of that dichotomizing activity. One experiences (note the dualistic language I must use!) non-separability and mutuality—what is sometimes called one-ness or wholeness; what I sometimes call entanglement.

The whole has no proper analogy. (Why?) It can only be alluded to (unless it can be described completely, inclusive of whoever is doing the describing, and how). One gets the sense of non-dualism in the meditative, zone, flow, state of awareness. But it also just makes sense—at least to me—that there is ultimately just a whole, of which we are.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I am not sure I know what this "zone" stuff means - I am guessing it's about something similar as that state of mind this thread is about? Anyway, not being sure what it means I can't comment on it either, but there were some things you said later that caught my attention:

[b]Thinking about it, this is actually very close to the concept of faith. If you h though of course it won't give you the experience either.

[/b]Thanks for chipping in, Noodles. I agree with many of the things you say, but let me concentrate in the fundamental differences.

As much as I hate it when people who have a faith I don't share start using their "Secret Decoder Ring", it may not always be avoidable.
All I'm saying is that these are not particularly enlightening to me, I'm not denying it may be (or, at least, feel) to them.

Thought doesn't always take the form of language (it does for me most of the time, but not always; and for some people it rarely does at all). Other forms of thought may not have the same need for dichotomy.

I'd like to posit that I believe this to be false. If you can't decode what's on your mind, are these really thoughts? At best, they are perceptions that you don't really understand. Rationality requires language (in the sense of code/decode).

(Interestingly, I have to use dualism to describe this, and I experience it almost as two different worlds - the dualism between dualism and non-dualism.)
That's a very interesting point and you pinpoint the inherent paradox (or, to me, contradiction) of non-dualism. If you recognize this, then how can you truly say the experience is itself non-dualist? I feel that this is can only be auto-suggestion. How can it truly be non-dualist if you think it is so different?

Note that I'm not advocating that all things need to be reducible to thought to have value. Just that they must be if they are to be part of any rational spirituality/philosophy views.

Here is a wonderful phrase from another thread that illustrates the difficulties of dualistic expression:

“...things that exist in the real world.”

Either you see it or you don’t; I make no further comment.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you can't decode what's on your mind, are these really thoughts? At best, they are perceptions that you don't really understand. Rationality requires language (in the sense of code/decode).

I'll try to reply properly to your post later, but meanwhile you might be interested in reading this - a description of a certain type of non-verbal thought: http://www.autistics.org/library/spatial.html

Originally posted by vistesd
Here are some sentences of standard subject-predicate form in English. The rhetorical question is: what kind of dualism is implied by these sentences, if our language actually reflects a dualist/dichotomous reality?
_______________________________

I will live my own life.

I am a dualist by nature.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and th ...[text shortened]... it also just makes sense—at least to me—that there is ultimately just a whole, of which we are.

I agree with everything, I just don't see simply this in Zen texts.

Perhaps due to not having experienced something that I can truly call a non-dualist experience, I don't read Zen texts like that at all. I see mostly a strong denial of dichotomy.

Things like:
The more you think about these matters, the farther you are from the truth.
or
Step aside from all thinking, and there is nowhere you can't go.

ruin it for me. Although I truly appreciate the idea of letting go of opinions in the sense of preconceptions, I cannot agree with the denial of thought itself, implicit or explicit in so many other passages...