Friam

attachment

Classic

List

Threaded

16 messages Options

Russ Abbott

attachment

I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: attachment

Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As long
as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything
valid beyond the delusion of your "self".

http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html

"One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71)
O Arjuna, this is the super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this
state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end
of one's life, a person becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get
> lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.
>
> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so
> badly.
> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I
> must stay detached.
> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X
> comes
> to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully
> engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may
> feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X
> comes
> to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_____________________________________________*
> *** Professor, Computer Science*
> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
> *_____________________________________________*
>

Eric Charles

Re: attachment

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Your email got through, and Carl had a great comparison with the notion of 'coolness'.

Following his suggestion, it seems that you are using 'attachment' and 'detachment' as short hands for caring-about-maintaining-your-attachment and caring-about-dissolving-your-attachment. Both are similar, in your view, because they involve putting forth effort to regulate one's level of attachment. The third option, which you are calling 'non-attachment' is to not care / not put forth effort. This could entail either being-neutral-to-your-level-of-attachment or the even more extreme being-oblivious-to-your-level-of-attachment. The former (neutral) option would allow for things like bemused self-observations ('How odd that I seem to care about this cup. Oh well.'), while the later (oblivious) option would not. Am I understanding you correctly?

Eric

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 01:52 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel ! very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688" target="" onclick="window.open('http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688');return false;">ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/" target="" onclick="window.open('https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/');return false;">plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/" style="font-style:italic" target="" onclick="window.open('http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/');return false;">sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

<a href="http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/" target="" onclick="window.open('http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/');return false;">CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

glen ropella

Re: attachment

Excellent! Thanks, Eric. Word games like these seem to me to be
semantic loops that can only be resolved by using a larger language.
There is no difference between "detachment" and "non-attachment" and
anyone who claims there is is playing games. That's OK. Games are fun.

But rather than go round and round trying to out-profound each other, I
need new words. Yours are a bit long, but they might work. ;-)

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 10/02/2012 06:58 AM:

> Following his suggestion, it seems that you are using 'attachment' and
> 'detachment' as short hands for caring-about-maintaining-your-attachment and
> caring-about-dissolving-your-attachment. Both are similar, in your view,
> because they involve putting forth effort to regulate one's level of
> attachment. The third option, which you are
> calling 'non-attachment' is to not care / not put forth effort. This could
> entail either being-neutral-to-your-level-of-attachment
> or the even more extreme being-oblivious-to-your-level-of-attachment.
> The former (neutral) option would allow for things like bemused
> self-observations ('How odd that I seem to care about this cup. Oh well.'),
> while the later (oblivious) option would not. Am I understanding you correctly?

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: attachment

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
YOU-ness. As long as you are detached from him, you cannot propound
anything ...... etc., right? You will never attain peace as long as you see
Russ as a YOU.

Right?

N

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As long as
"you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything valid
beyond the delusion of your "self".

http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html

"One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the feeling
of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the super-conscious
state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this
state, even at the end of one's life, a person becomes one with the
Absolute. (2.72)."

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.
>
> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
> so badly.
> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
> I must stay detached.
> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X
> comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_____________________________________________*
> *** Professor, Computer Science*
> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
> *_____________________________________________*
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: attachment

Oh dear me,

Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too
advanced. I thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who
..becomes .... free from I or my ... "

"You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.

Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic
of which the Gita is a tiny part)

http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html

The entire Gita is reduced to this para

"Krishna said, “Arjuna, may it be known to you that man’s duty lies in
performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To
oppress others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger
sin. All those, whom you claim to be your relatives are none but
individual souls, unrelated to you, on way to their ultimate
destination of uniting with the supreme Lord, the Brahman. Pick up
your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to you. Do not think of
the consequences.”

Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
> YOU-ness. As long as you are detached from him, you cannot propound
> anything ...... etc., right? You will never attain peace as long as you
> see
> Russ as a YOU.
>
> Right?
>
> N
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As long as
> "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything valid
> beyond the delusion of your "self".
>
> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>
> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
> feeling
> of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
> super-conscious
> state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this
> state, even at the end of one's life, a person becomes one with the
> Absolute. (2.72)."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is
>> again.
>>
>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
>> so badly.
>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>> I must stay detached.
>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X
>> comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>
>>
>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>> *_____________________________________________*
>> *** Professor, Computer Science*
>> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>>
>> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>> *_____________________________________________*
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Steve Smith

Re: attachment

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I might send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it. I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.

I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: attachment

I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago. Oops

Thanks a lot, Steve...

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I might send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it. I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.
I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: attachment

Attachment is only a problem if when detachment sets in it causes suffering, e.g. my leg
Robert C

On 10/2/12 11:34 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago. Oops
Thanks a lot, Steve...
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I might send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it. I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.
I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: attachment

Our economic system could use some preferential detachment.

-Arlo James Barnes

Steve Smith

Re: attachment

Excellent wordplay young man... and also... a great diversionment from the seriousness of the moment!

Our economic system could use some preferential detachment.

-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: attachment

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Are you pulling my leg?

I loved the (oversimplified/pop) description of (Westernized?) Buddhism stating that "suffering is the consequence avoiding pain" and that "life is suffering" (apologies to all the Buddhist/Hindu scholars and/or practicioners and/or culturally embeddeds for my limited understanding of this).

My wife calls me a Calvinist and thinks I *love suffering* and might even suggest I am *attached to suffering* when in fact, from inside my head/heart/chakras, I experience something that feels more like non-attachment to the pain which she is imagining I am enjoying (or the suffering I'm enjoying avoiding the pain?).

I have to admit that my sense of "morbid fascination" might just be an attachment to a certain kind of suffering... hmmm.... I *love* the bite of this red-chile infused lager I'm sipping... she may have a point...

Attachment is only a problem if when detachment sets in it causes suffering, e.g. my leg
Robert C

On 10/2/12 11:34 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago. Oops
Thanks a lot, Steve...
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I might send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it. I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.
I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: attachment

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Sarbajit,

I stand corrected. I had always thought that the issue was the illusion of
separateness. So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
for the gander [i.e., "you"). If I am not separate from you, surely you are
not separate from me.

But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy right now
to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things to me when you
have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.

Anyway, thanks for the correction.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Oh dear me,

Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too advanced. I
thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who ..becomes ....
free from I or my ... "

"You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.

Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic of
which the Gita is a tiny part)

http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html

The entire Gita is reduced to this para

"Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in
performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To oppress
others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger sin. All those,
whom you claim to be your relatives are none but individual souls, unrelated
to you, on way to their ultimate destination of uniting with the supreme
Lord, the Brahman. Pick up your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to
you. Do not think of the consequences."

Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
> YOU-ness. As long as you are detached from him, you cannot propound
> anything ...... etc., right? You will never attain peace as long as
> you see Russ as a YOU.
>
> Right?
>
> N
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As long
> as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything
> valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>
> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>
> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer
> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person
> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is
>> again.
>>
>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
>> so badly.
>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>> I must stay detached.
>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby
>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>
>>
>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>> *_____________________________________________*
>> *** Professor, Computer Science*
>> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>>
>> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>> *_____________________________________________*
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: attachment

Dear Nick

There's no illusion of separateness.
"You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up
"I"ness to progress further.

I'll clarify this with a Western text:
"WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".

Sarbajit

On 10/3/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sarbajit,
>
> I stand corrected. I had always thought that the issue was the illusion of
> separateness. So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
> for the gander [i.e., "you"). If I am not separate from you, surely you
> are
> not separate from me.
>
> But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy right now
> to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things to me when you
> have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the correction.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Oh dear me,
>
> Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too advanced. I
> thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who ..becomes ....
> free from I or my ... "
>
> "You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.
>
> Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic of
> which the Gita is a tiny part)
>
> http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html
>
> The entire Gita is reduced to this para
>
> "Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in
> performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To oppress
> others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger sin. All those,
> whom you claim to be your relatives are none but individual souls,
> unrelated
> to you, on way to their ultimate destination of uniting with the supreme
> Lord, the Brahman. Pick up your weapon and fight that is what is ordained
> to
> you. Do not think of the consequences."
>
> Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
>> YOU-ness. As long as you are detached from him, you cannot propound
>> anything ...... etc., right? You will never attain peace as long as
>> you see Russ as a YOU.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> N
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
>> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>> Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>>
>> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As long
>> as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything
>> valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>>
>> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>>
>> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
>> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
>> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer
>> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person
>> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
>>> so badly.
>>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>>> I must stay detached.
>>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby
>>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
>>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
>>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
>>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>>> *_____________________________________________*
>>> *** Professor, Computer Science*
>>> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>>>
>>> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>>> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>>> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>>> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>>> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>>> *_____________________________________________*
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>> http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>> http://www.friam.org
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Nick Thompson

Re: attachment

Unfortunately, I haven't read THAT text either! (};-]}

Thanks, Sarbajit,

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Dear Nick

There's no illusion of separateness.
"You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up "I"ness to
progress further.

I'll clarify this with a Western text:
"WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".

Sarbajit

On 10/3/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sarbajit,
>
> I stand corrected. I had always thought that the issue was the illusion
of

> separateness. So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
> for the gander [i.e., "you"). If I am not separate from you, surely
> you are not separate from me.
>
> But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy
> right now to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things
> to me when you have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the correction.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Oh dear me,
>
> Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too
> advanced. I thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who

..becomes ....

> free from I or my ... "
>
> "You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.
>
> Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic
> of which the Gita is a tiny part)
>
> http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html
>
> The entire Gita is reduced to this para
>
> "Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in
> performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To
> oppress others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger
> sin. All those, whom you claim to be your relatives are none but
> individual souls, unrelated to you, on way to their ultimate
> destination of uniting with the supreme Lord, the Brahman. Pick up
> your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to you. Do not think of
> the consequences."
>
> Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
>> YOU-ness. As long as you are detached from him, you cannot propound
>> anything ...... etc., right? You will never attain peace as long as
>> you see Russ as a YOU.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> N
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
>> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>> Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>>
>> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of "I". As
>> long as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound
>> anything valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>>
>> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>>
>> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
>> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
>> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer
>> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person
>> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts. Here it is
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want
>>> it so badly.
>>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>>> I must stay detached.
>>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby
>>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may
>>> be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It
>>> it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad.
>>> But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>>> *_____________________________________________*
>>> *** Professor, Computer Science*
>>> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>>>
>>> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>>> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>>> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>>> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>>> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>>> *_____________________________________________*
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>> http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
>> http://www.friam.org
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: attachment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

On 10/3/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I haven't read THAT text either! (};-]}
>
> Thanks, Sarbajit,
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:18 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Dear Nick
>
> There's no illusion of separateness.
> "You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up "I"ness to
> progress further.
>
> I'll clarify this with a Western text:
> "WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".
>
> Sarbajit