Almost going back, back to CTTB, back home in a sense. Tough and quiet, pure, strong, diligent ~ that's the place.
I will take courses in Classical Chinese (see www.drbu.org); will work on the farm; will meditate; will translate from English to Dutch; will participate in the Guan Yin session; will join the study and meditation session in Oregon; will learn, learn, learn and face myself: honesty.
Amituofo!
donderdag 24 juni 2010
donderdag 22 april 2010
busy, but will be
busy busy busy
i always say i am, think i am, and i suppose i might really be that, busy, most of the time actually.
But there is light: in a few months i'll fly back to where i feel i left part of my heart*: CTTB. Where i'll be incredibly busy too; i look forward to it: busy cultivating, busy doing good stuff.
and busy with, yeah lets just speak religious language, fighting some demons - not even sure which ones to fight and which might turn out to be rather ok-things of life.
And oh i wish i was able to beat my attachment to sleep... i used to get up real early, but just can't manage to now. And it is a vicious circle of course: get out (relatively late (i.e. early, but not really early)) and then don't feel tired at all, takes long to get to sleep. lots of stuff around this too.
I should just DO IT!
sometimes clichés are best:
just do it!
try your best! (oh this one has lots of meaning for me actually)
it's ok :)
go for it!
and...
yes we can!
I wish it were a peaceful world, with lots of space and room for everyone to be wholesome and happy,
fedde
* (i guess this doesn't work in english, in dutch it does though)
i always say i am, think i am, and i suppose i might really be that, busy, most of the time actually.
But there is light: in a few months i'll fly back to where i feel i left part of my heart*: CTTB. Where i'll be incredibly busy too; i look forward to it: busy cultivating, busy doing good stuff.
and busy with, yeah lets just speak religious language, fighting some demons - not even sure which ones to fight and which might turn out to be rather ok-things of life.
And oh i wish i was able to beat my attachment to sleep... i used to get up real early, but just can't manage to now. And it is a vicious circle of course: get out (relatively late (i.e. early, but not really early)) and then don't feel tired at all, takes long to get to sleep. lots of stuff around this too.
I should just DO IT!
sometimes clichés are best:
just do it!
try your best! (oh this one has lots of meaning for me actually)
it's ok :)
go for it!
and...
yes we can!
I wish it were a peaceful world, with lots of space and room for everyone to be wholesome and happy,
fedde
* (i guess this doesn't work in english, in dutch it does though)
woensdag 24 maart 2010
swambies - a thought experiment in philosophy of mind
David Chalmers has his famous (our, should i say infamous?) zombie-argument: he conceives the existence of zombies (physically the same as us, in make up and actions) in a possible world to be conceivable. These zombies would have, as said, the same physical properties, but not the qualia that we - normal non-zombie folks - experience. Since the possible pysical world would be the same, in Chalmers' situation there'd be no causal relevance of our qualia to the pysical world - i myself find this highly troubling, but lets leave that for now. I want to take up the idea of a kind of zombie, i call it a swambie, in this world n now.
I might have got this idea from somewhere in Chalmers' book (1995), i do believe in cryptomnesia, but I don't think my idea is quite the same as his.So here it is:
imagine a swamp - i do love those places. Now in our swamp there is a pool, a lifeless pool (i.e. no organisms whatsoever). Nevertheless there is slow but certain movement (simply by the temperatures), which, over an endless time, forces all present elements to be in all possible combinations. Now, do realize there is some energy in there, electricity, and also imagine those ''elements'' to be the things that make up a human body.
Now here comes the fun:
on a certain moment, per definition, there has to be a composition, by chance, of elements which equals the composition of your brain (or mine, i don't mind (pun :P)) or even better, your body.
Now here's even more fun:
i guess some materialists might have to be forced by now, by this highly improbable situation, though completely conceivable, to say there emerges consciousness in our chance-made body.
I find this higly counterintuitive: it can simply NOT be conscious.
My intuition would not force to a form of strong immaterialism per se, but it does have some interesting consequenses:
a) the meaning of ''body'', ''brain'' and ''mind'' seem to involve their history (help! does this sound like something teleological, though in backward direction?), their context, the meaning of states (in social situations?). A lot of interesting directions here.
b) from a: tangible ''matter''* alone cannot be held responsible for our conscious states.
*it is of course a problematic point i am yet to get clear about: what to mean by matter and what not?
so my swambies. I don't know whether it adds anything to the discussions in the philosophy of mind; i do like to think about them.
peace,
fedde
Chalmers, David. 1995. The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory.
I might have got this idea from somewhere in Chalmers' book (1995), i do believe in cryptomnesia, but I don't think my idea is quite the same as his.So here it is:
imagine a swamp - i do love those places. Now in our swamp there is a pool, a lifeless pool (i.e. no organisms whatsoever). Nevertheless there is slow but certain movement (simply by the temperatures), which, over an endless time, forces all present elements to be in all possible combinations. Now, do realize there is some energy in there, electricity, and also imagine those ''elements'' to be the things that make up a human body.
Now here comes the fun:
on a certain moment, per definition, there has to be a composition, by chance, of elements which equals the composition of your brain (or mine, i don't mind (pun :P)) or even better, your body.
Now here's even more fun:
i guess some materialists might have to be forced by now, by this highly improbable situation, though completely conceivable, to say there emerges consciousness in our chance-made body.
I find this higly counterintuitive: it can simply NOT be conscious.
My intuition would not force to a form of strong immaterialism per se, but it does have some interesting consequenses:
a) the meaning of ''body'', ''brain'' and ''mind'' seem to involve their history (help! does this sound like something teleological, though in backward direction?), their context, the meaning of states (in social situations?). A lot of interesting directions here.
b) from a: tangible ''matter''* alone cannot be held responsible for our conscious states.
*it is of course a problematic point i am yet to get clear about: what to mean by matter and what not?
so my swambies. I don't know whether it adds anything to the discussions in the philosophy of mind; i do like to think about them.
peace,
fedde
Chalmers, David. 1995. The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory.
maandag 22 maart 2010
the question
me, respons to Anke's happines: ''smiles are gold''
Anke: ''@Fedde, YES!''
''Yes!'' has a powerful and affirmative question, affirmative. And i guess, i feel, that in this context, and a lot of other contexts, goes beyond affirming the simple affirming of my statement. I suppose it goes on in a sense to affirm life, or at least a large conceptual web of associations around my statement (whatever it may consist of).
So the question of the day:
to affirm or not to affirm - in a wide and strong sense.
Should we accept life? Affirm suffering? Should we say ''yes'' to joy? To ENjoy it? To be in the joy; to lose thyself. Or should we neglect it?
The Middle Way? Simply being Content as happiness - having enough and being dumb.
remember: truth hurts
know: certainty is too far away
be: playful
make it be: truthful and joyful
peacefully,
fedde
(thinking aphoristically, abstract yet very concrete, cannot follow myself :D)
Anke: ''@Fedde, YES!''
''Yes!'' has a powerful and affirmative question, affirmative. And i guess, i feel, that in this context, and a lot of other contexts, goes beyond affirming the simple affirming of my statement. I suppose it goes on in a sense to affirm life, or at least a large conceptual web of associations around my statement (whatever it may consist of).
So the question of the day:
to affirm or not to affirm - in a wide and strong sense.
Should we accept life? Affirm suffering? Should we say ''yes'' to joy? To ENjoy it? To be in the joy; to lose thyself. Or should we neglect it?
The Middle Way? Simply being Content as happiness - having enough and being dumb.
remember: truth hurts
know: certainty is too far away
be: playful
make it be: truthful and joyful
peacefully,
fedde
(thinking aphoristically, abstract yet very concrete, cannot follow myself :D)
dreams
pfff
dreams are weird stuff. They are real, yet unreal; their strangeness can be clear, yet not clear enough to reveal the identity of the dream as a dream.
Knowledge breaks apart the world in pieces; fragmenst our perception; denies the deepness and veracity of connections.
Stupidity is to trust knowledge - wisdom to see the relativity of knowledge and then the active skill to bypass the fragmentation, or: to heal the wound, or: to not even have the wound.
Something like that i suppose.
''Reality'' is really a construct. It is sooo relative, sometimes this hurts - the relativity. But it heals the joy.
So in a dream i had last night (better: this morning) i married a girl (whom i don't even like in real life) - why on earth. Some things (even tactile) i recall as so vivid. So strange this is... might Freud be right?
or perhaps Jung?
recalling the dream i had of getting a girlfriend - now i got married; perhaps there is some teleology in this (i.e. perhaps this is goal-oriented): this would imply i'm going through this experiences in dreams to leave them behind in real life.
This last one is a) the most convenient explanation (i.e. i'd prefer it) and b) as proveable as Freuds'. Point b is debatable - i guess with the preference of possible evidence going towards both options.
dreaming on
fedde
peace
dreams are weird stuff. They are real, yet unreal; their strangeness can be clear, yet not clear enough to reveal the identity of the dream as a dream.
Knowledge breaks apart the world in pieces; fragmenst our perception; denies the deepness and veracity of connections.
Stupidity is to trust knowledge - wisdom to see the relativity of knowledge and then the active skill to bypass the fragmentation, or: to heal the wound, or: to not even have the wound.
Something like that i suppose.
''Reality'' is really a construct. It is sooo relative, sometimes this hurts - the relativity. But it heals the joy.
So in a dream i had last night (better: this morning) i married a girl (whom i don't even like in real life) - why on earth. Some things (even tactile) i recall as so vivid. So strange this is... might Freud be right?
or perhaps Jung?
recalling the dream i had of getting a girlfriend - now i got married; perhaps there is some teleology in this (i.e. perhaps this is goal-oriented): this would imply i'm going through this experiences in dreams to leave them behind in real life.
This last one is a) the most convenient explanation (i.e. i'd prefer it) and b) as proveable as Freuds'. Point b is debatable - i guess with the preference of possible evidence going towards both options.
dreaming on
fedde
peace
woensdag 24 februari 2010
on somethings
can there even be existence outside of time?
i.e.:
-what does it mean to exist?
-are there different sorts?
-wat is it's relation to time?
i.e.:
-what does it mean to exist?
-are there different sorts?
-wat is it's relation to time?
maandag 22 februari 2010
good news
at least for those of us who prefer not having the illusion of free will but just having it - i.e. free will:
http://paranormalandlifeafterdeath.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-will-is-not-illusion-after-all.html
an article is discusses in which Libet's famous experiment is called into question - quite straightforward actually!
Now this shows light on another problem:
WHY on earth have there been people constantly referring to ''Libet's experiment''?! Did nobody else try to (conceptually) replicate it? haha lol, and parapsychologists still worry about replicability.
But even better news:
“Passing from here through hundreds of thousands of millions of Buddhalands to the West, there is a world called Ultimate Bliss. In this land a Buddha called Amitabha right now teaches the Dharma...'' read on: http://cttbusa.org/amitabha/amitabha.htm
faith is a precious jewel, a source of virtue
http://paranormalandlifeafterdeath.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-will-is-not-illusion-after-all.html
an article is discusses in which Libet's famous experiment is called into question - quite straightforward actually!
Now this shows light on another problem:
WHY on earth have there been people constantly referring to ''Libet's experiment''?! Did nobody else try to (conceptually) replicate it? haha lol, and parapsychologists still worry about replicability.
But even better news:
“Passing from here through hundreds of thousands of millions of Buddhalands to the West, there is a world called Ultimate Bliss. In this land a Buddha called Amitabha right now teaches the Dharma...'' read on: http://cttbusa.org/amitabha/amitabha.htm
faith is a precious jewel, a source of virtue
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
