FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi carl,

 

Interesting that you called your view “pragmatic”, because it seemed to come close to my man Peirce’s monism, and Peirce was the originator of Pragmatism.  On his account, there is only one kind of stuff … experience …  but every experience has three aspects, which Peirce called “firstness, secondness, and thirdness”  No imputation of temporal order is allowed; they all come at once.   Firstness is the figure against the ground, which is secondness, as determined by the relation between figure and ground, which is thirdness.  You could, of course, think of his philosophy as a trioism.  But there is nothing but experience, and all experiences are inherently complex in this manner.

 

The rest of the list just went to sleep, so I better stop. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:16 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm.   P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not.   The pursuit of them can get in the way.    Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

"It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One".   Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling.   What if the only monism is dualism?   A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

C

On 11/17/15 6:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Rich Murray-2]

I'd like to illustrate a typical teaching maneuver for making shifted (uh, expanded) awareness available -- as you sit and gaze at these very little dark on white crooked m a  r   k    s , notice

that they appear as largely 2D images within the ah, visual space of your own awareness -- 

while very quickly there arise acoustic memories in ah, the acoustic space of your own awareness  -- 

while very quickly indeed, there arise flocks of evolving meanings within the ah, cognizing space of your own awareness --

while, in the background there are a multitude of prosaic sensations in all parts of the body representation space of your own awareness --

in some cases, there will be a spontaneous shift in which the visual space images seems to unify and harmonize as a lovely 2D abstraction --

you can play with this in many ways -- for instance imagine that you can project your focus of attention straight ahead right through the visual image into an empty space of awareness, like locating the far horizon of ocean and sky at the beach --

you can gaze this way in all directions at once, and also from ever vaster to ever tinier distances --

if a notable phase change of awareness happens, enjoy it, and gently seek to allow more, and more...

if you call me on Skype video chat  we can play in many similar ways  rich.murray11  Imperial Beach, CA 91932

619-623-3468 home

Rich Murray

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, steve.  Nice.

 

I think that idea of the “raw feels” (as Tolman used to call it) would have been denied by my man Peirce.  All experience is constructed and all experience is raw.  The idea that perceptions are built up from sensations has no basis in experience. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:26 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Benny Lichtner-2]

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

I like this example/description, and it reminds me that a lot of political/philosophical arguments seem to boil down to arguments about causality, or which phenomena are more or less responsible for which other phenomena.

In my experience, non-dualism is difficult enough to grasp fully, and rare enough to find (in most of the western world), that I'm almost certain there are lots of Important Goodies tucked away somewhere in there.

--Benny

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:19 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Snow Removal (Owen Densmore)
   2. Nondualism (glen)
   3. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)
   4. Re: Nondualism (Steve Smith)
   5. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)
   6. A physics question (Nick Thompson)
   7. Re: Nondualism (Steve Smith)
   8. Re: A physics question (Owen Densmore)
   9. Re: A physics question (Steve Smith)
  10. Re: Nondualism (Carl)
  11. Re: A physics question (Carl)
  12. Re: A physics question (Sarbajit Roy)
  13. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>, Wedtech <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:19:34 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Snow Removal

Sorry for cross post, but:

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good snow removal service?

   -- Owen

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: glen <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:03:24 -0800
Subject: [FRIAM] Nondualism

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

--
⇔ glen




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:55:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism
Glen,

There are a couple of people in the Local Congregation who taunt me constantly from a position which I identify as "eastern" .  I love them like brothers -- really, I do, and they know it -- but between you and me, the position seems a bit gah-gah.  Or, as a non dualist, I guess I would just have to say, "Gah!".   Not that I don't love a good experience of wonder, every so often.  But wonder, like doubt, is for me an unstable state, leading to inquiry.   I can't see wallowing in it.

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Nondualism


OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have
> ventured into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared
> paranormal experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is
> becoming more prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free
> video teaching, crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers --
> just Google "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time
> process of intimate communication about moment by moment raw
> experience, while agreeing on shared positive goals -- this leads to
> viewpoints and vistas that completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...


--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:51:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:19:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:04:23 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] A physics question

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:25:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

Yes.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:56:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

Nick -

I see some obvious mechanisms that would allow for this:

Ice Caves are an interesting phenomenon which appear to beat the basic thermodynamics of a situation, some of their mechanisms would appear to allow for what you suggest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cave#Temperature_mechanisms

A simple answer is "yes"...  if the existing icicle is cold enough, water *can* be frozen onto it even if the ambient air temperature is above 0C...  

It also does seem conceivable that evaporation of an outer layer of liquid water running down an icicle might remove enough heat from an inner layer to "grow" the icicle some more.  Our dry (and thin?) air would probably help.  

I'm guessing that what you are looking for is a balanced equation between the latent heat of vaporization and the latent heat of  fusion for water.  A quick glance at the enthalpy equations suggest that there is more energy consumed by vaporization than required for fusion (freezing) of water.   The remaining questions include things like rates of evaporation in (semi)dry air and so forth. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat#Latent_heat_for_condensation_of_water

I suppose the point of having icicles form on the sunny side is twofold:  first to provide the source of liquid water (melting snow) and second to make it all the more curiouser if/when the icicles grow?

A real (currently practicing) physicist might do something more useful with your question.

- Steve

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:15:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm.   P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not.   The pursuit of them can get in the way.    Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

"It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One".   Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling.   What if the only monism is dualism?   A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

C

On 11/17/15 6:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:20:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

All a matter of perspective, but, basically, yes.

On 11/17/15 6:50 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Yes.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:32:23 +0530
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question
Nice question. Probably needs more information though to answer for
near some boundary conditions.

http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/34/116/igs_journal_vol34_issue116_pg64-70.pdf

"ABSTRACT : A theory of icicle growth is presented. ... A
time-dependent computer model based on the theory shows that the
growth of an icicle is a complicated process, which is very sensitive
to the atmospheric conditions and water flux"

I'm crossposting your query to some physics experts at
http://www.physicstutordelhi.in to ask students as a test question

On 11/18/15, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:
>
> Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air
> temperature is above freezing?
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:18:48 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Thanks, steve.  Nice.

 

I think that idea of the “raw feels” (as Tolman used to call it) would have been denied by my man Peirce.  All experience is constructed and all experience is raw.  The idea that perceptions are built up from sensations has no basis in experience. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Benny,

 

Well, at the risk of being overly literal, I don’t think non-dualism is possible to “grasp” at all, since grasping is an inherently dualist metaphor.  Even in Peirce (yeah, I know you folks are desperately tired of my interest in Peirce on you)… Even within Peirce’s monism, there is a trioism between the sign (S) and the thing it is a sign to (O) and the entity or person for which S is a sign to O.  I think the point of my eastern taunters is that we should stop grasping.  Just let experience come upon us.  Like you, I guess, I don’t know what that means.  Let’s say I am smoking pot and have an oh wow experience looking at the dripping icicle.  It becomes “a glowing shaft of glass”, “a Damoclesian sword of cold”.  These sign relations are no less a grasping then a “tube of frozen water filled with liquid water and surrounded by a “skin” of descending supercooled.”  Every experience is a grasping, and, in Peirce’s philosophy, every grasp misses its mark and is necessarily succeeded by the next. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Benny Lichtner
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:53 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

 

I like this example/description, and it reminds me that a lot of political/philosophical arguments seem to boil down to arguments about causality, or which phenomena are more or less responsible for which other phenomena.

 

In my experience, non-dualism is difficult enough to grasp fully, and rare enough to find (in most of the western world), that I'm almost certain there are lots of Important Goodies tucked away somewhere in there.

 

--Benny

 

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:19 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Snow Removal (Owen Densmore)
   2. Nondualism (glen)
   3. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)
   4. Re: Nondualism (Steve Smith)
   5. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)
   6. A physics question (Nick Thompson)
   7. Re: Nondualism (Steve Smith)
   8. Re: A physics question (Owen Densmore)
   9. Re: A physics question (Steve Smith)
  10. Re: Nondualism (Carl)
  11. Re: A physics question (Carl)
  12. Re: A physics question (Sarbajit Roy)
  13. Re: Nondualism (Nick Thompson)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>, Wedtech <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:19:34 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Snow Removal

Sorry for cross post, but:

 

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good snow removal service?

 

   -- Owen

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: glen <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:03:24 -0800
Subject: [FRIAM] Nondualism

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

--
⇔ glen




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:55:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism
Glen,

There are a couple of people in the Local Congregation who taunt me constantly from a position which I identify as "eastern" .  I love them like brothers -- really, I do, and they know it -- but between you and me, the position seems a bit gah-gah.  Or, as a non dualist, I guess I would just have to say, "Gah!".   Not that I don't love a good experience of wonder, every so often.  But wonder, like doubt, is for me an unstable state, leading to inquiry.   I can't see wallowing in it.

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Nondualism


OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have
> ventured into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared
> paranormal experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is
> becoming more prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free
> video teaching, crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers --
> just Google "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time
> process of intimate communication about moment by moment raw
> experience, while agreeing on shared positive goals -- this leads to
> viewpoints and vistas that completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...


--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:51:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:19:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:04:23 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] A physics question

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:25:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

Yes.

 

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:56:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

Nick -

I see some obvious mechanisms that would allow for this:

Ice Caves are an interesting phenomenon which appear to beat the basic thermodynamics of a situation, some of their mechanisms would appear to allow for what you suggest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cave#Temperature_mechanisms

A simple answer is "yes"...  if the existing icicle is cold enough, water *can* be frozen onto it even if the ambient air temperature is above 0C...  

It also does seem conceivable that evaporation of an outer layer of liquid water running down an icicle might remove enough heat from an inner layer to "grow" the icicle some more.  Our dry (and thin?) air would probably help.  

I'm guessing that what you are looking for is a balanced equation between the latent heat of vaporization and the latent heat of  fusion for water.  A quick glance at the enthalpy equations suggest that there is more energy consumed by vaporization than required for fusion (freezing) of water.   The remaining questions include things like rates of evaporation in (semi)dry air and so forth. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat#Latent_heat_for_condensation_of_water

I suppose the point of having icicles form on the sunny side is twofold:  first to provide the source of liquid water (melting snow) and second to make it all the more curiouser if/when the icicles grow?

A real (currently practicing) physicist might do something more useful with your question.

- Steve

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:15:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm.   P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not.   The pursuit of them can get in the way.    Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

"It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One".   Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling.   What if the only monism is dualism?   A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

C

On 11/17/15 6:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:20:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question

All a matter of perspective, but, basically, yes.

On 11/17/15 6:50 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Yes.

 

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:

 

Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air temperature is above freezing? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:32:23 +0530
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A physics question
Nice question. Probably needs more information though to answer for
near some boundary conditions.

http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/34/116/igs_journal_vol34_issue116_pg64-70.pdf

"ABSTRACT : A theory of icicle growth is presented. ... A
time-dependent computer model based on the theory shows that the
growth of an icicle is a complicated process, which is very sensitive
to the atmospheric conditions and water flux"

I'm crossposting your query to some physics experts at
http://www.physicstutordelhi.in to ask students as a test question

On 11/18/15, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Chiefly for the Church Fathers of the Santa Fe Mother Church:
>
> Can one grow an icicle off the sunny side of a building if the air
> temperature is above freezing?
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:18:48 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

Thanks, steve.  Nice.

 

I think that idea of the “raw feels” (as Tolman used to call it) would have been denied by my man Peirce.  All experience is constructed and all experience is raw.  The idea that perceptions are built up from sensations has no basis in experience. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Nick -

I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.  

I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the expression of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else...

More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal?

- Steve

Steve, Glen,

 

I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

 

Glen -

You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think).

If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in:

Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality)
Moral: Good V. Evil
Theological: Creator/Creation
Ontological: Yin/Yang
Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness
Wiccan: god/goddess
Cognitive: Mind/Brain

...etc

Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)?

I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!).

I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence.

Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.   

In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway.

That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.  

My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.  

I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head.

- Steve

OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^)

But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view.

This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/).

Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!)


On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

On 11/17/2015 05:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the
> process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and
> happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?)
> goal?

Yes, that's very close to what I'm questioning.  The nondualism I've been reading about (avoiding the misapplication of more justified types) talks about the different _forms_ of reality being equivalent to every other form.  So, while there's the ability to "unify" in realizing that the different forms are all expressions of the underlying stuff, it's not reducible to the underlying stuff.  It _must_ be experienced at the "leaves".  You can't get to the "trunk" ... indeed, there really is no "trunk".  The "unified" feeling you get during their spiritual experiences is an (temporary) ability to embrace this trunkless bush (which sounds kinda fractal to me).

But what I'm questioning more is why would we expect such an embracing to feel good?  Why can't it be terrifying and still be legitimate "enlightenment"?  My suspicion is that if I went in amongst a bunch of self-described nondualists and said I have such experiences and am always terrified by them, they would (perhaps without saying it) believe I'd gotten it WRONG... that somehow I wasn't doing it right.


On 11/17/2015 06:15 PM, Carl wrote:
> I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm. P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not. The pursuit of them can get in the way. Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

But, again, why can't horror and discord be reinforcing side-effects of praxis?  Why are those emotions denigrated as things to avoid while P&H are elevated to idealistic positions?

> "It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One". Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling. What if the only monism is dualism? A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

I think "dualism is the only monism" gets at the point at least as well as my metaphor of the trunkless bush ... I dislike the trivial distinction between monism and dualism, though.  Dualism is a relatively trivial case of non-monism.  If this concept holds any truth, there are definitely more than 2 paths, ways to be.  And, although it's tempting to claim that going from 1 to 2 is more significant than, say, 2 to 3 ... or from 1e100 to its successor, that misses the forest for too much focus on the trees.

The question I'm asking, though, is why would we think it's a Good Thing to think beyond any given scope?  Not only intellectually, but emotionally.  Why would we expect it to feel good or be a pleasant feeling?

On 11/17/2015 10:48 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> you can gaze this way in all directions at once, and also from ever vaster
> to ever tinier distances --
>
> if a notable phase change of awareness happens, enjoy it, and gently seek
> to allow more, and more...

The former paragraph is very different, I think, from the latter paragraph.  I'm _very_ attracted to the idea of swapping from one leaf to another leaf on the trunkless bush.  I've done that sort of thing for as long as I can remember.  But changing scopes is a different thing.  I do that, too.  But it's more sporadic and has more to do with what I do and don't eat than whatever ideology is coursing through the gel in my head.

Flitting from one locale to another (phase changes) seems appropriately tied to emotions.  E.g. putting yourself into the shoes of an impoverished Syrian with a wife and 3 children to take care of rightly induces a bit of anxiety, rather than pleasure.

But when we think of enlarging our scope, from our mundane little world of, say, paying bills or mowing the lawn, up to the scale of a comet flying through the solar system, or the center of a galactic whirl eating its steady diet, we tend to associate that with WONDER, and AWE... all those Good Things the mystics yap about constantly.  Why can't enlarging the scope cause fear and loathing?  And why would those emotions be any less legitimate?



--
⊥ glen ⊥

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com