IGX

Turd,

After the destruction of the second temple, the tradition is that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai hid from the Romans in a cave for 13 years, and in that time became so elevated that he wrote the Zohar, which is the foundational text of Jewish mysticism.

There's also a tradition in the Talmud that four great sages sought mystical insight. One died, another went insane, another became a heretic, and only Rabbi Akiva came out of it intact. As a Driven Leaf tells the story of the sage who became the heretic, Elisha ben Abuyah.

As a general matter, the initial chasidic masters engaged in and encouraged fervent prayer, but not withdrawal. They regularly wrote and worked 20-hour days as mayor, advisor, prayer leader, philanthropist, diplomat, as is still practiced by present-day chasiddic rebbes. In yiddish, one who prays fervently but isn't out on the streets doing the hard work helping others is referred to as a tzaddik in peltz, a righteous person in a fur coat.

Mickey O'neil wrote:Bux, was it you that was reading a book about telling yourself the truth and how we lie to ourselves all of the time? If so, what book was that?.

Any and all of Ralston's books/courses drive this principle hard. This book especially.

Here's Mr Mystical Incantation himself coming out of seclusion to discuss this impractical hocus-pocus.

And here's an especially delightful snippet from his newsletter

Peter Ralston wrote:I have noticed a few general misunderstandings about things that I say or promote, and I’d like to begin the process of clearing these up. The first is my promotion of honesty. Yes, it is true that I suggest honesty is the best course to take for so many reasons — personal integrity, and so personal power as well as inner fulfillment, pursuing growth, increasing consciousness, directly experiencing the truth of anything, and more. And it is also a most powerful practice for pursuing deep personal transformation. Many people run into a challenge, however, about “how” to be honest. Some confuse rudeness or hurting others as a viable course for honesty.
It might be so sometimes that honesty demands stepping outside of social conventions and so may seem rude. Yet, if the purpose of any communication is to hurt someone in any way, then you are not being honest. Did you get that? Hurting someone is not honesty, it is hurting someone. Beyond the simple fact that your purpose for communication dictates what you’re actually up to, I invite you to see that “attacking” someone in some way, subtle or gross, is not being honest about what you actually experience, it is “doing” something about what you experience. These are always different. And you will find that with real honesty — unfettered by any motive or impulse other than to experience what’s most true — your deepest experience has nothing to do with reacting to or manipulating others. Honesty should not to be confused with venting emotions, airing opinions, pushing beliefs, defending a position, or any other activity which sometime pass for “being honest.”
You should also consider that if real honesty is the principle behind a communication, and the pursuit of what’s really true is the basis for a conversation and is followed to completion, then no damage will be done. The purpose of honesty is to get at and reveal the real truth. Discovering and revealing what ever is so, or true, leaves us with what “is” — reality — this doesn’t cause harm, it is simply what’s so. In short, be honest, don’t be an asshole, the two are different.

Thank you, Bux. I was actually thinking about the thread from a while back where Norm asked you about this topic from your training log.

BucketHead wrote:And here's an especially delightful snippet from his newsletter

Peter Ralston wrote:I have noticed a few general misunderstandings about things that I say or promote, and I’d like to begin the process of clearing these up. The first is my promotion of honesty. Yes, it is true that I suggest honesty is the best course to take for so many reasons — personal integrity, and so personal power as well as inner fulfillment, pursuing growth, increasing consciousness, directly experiencing the truth of anything, and more. And it is also a most powerful practice for pursuing deep personal transformation. Many people run into a challenge, however, about “how” to be honest. Some confuse rudeness or hurting others as a viable course for honesty.
It might be so sometimes that honesty demands stepping outside of social conventions and so may seem rude. Yet, if the purpose of any communication is to hurt someone in any way, then you are not being honest. Did you get that? Hurting someone is not honesty, it is hurting someone. Beyond the simple fact that your purpose for communication dictates what you’re actually up to, I invite you to see that “attacking” someone in some way, subtle or gross, is not being honest about what you actually experience, it is “doing” something about what you experience. These are always different. And you will find that with real honesty — unfettered by any motive or impulse other than to experience what’s most true — your deepest experience has nothing to do with reacting to or manipulating others. Honesty should not to be confused with venting emotions, airing opinions, pushing beliefs, defending a position, or any other activity which sometime pass for “being honest.”
You should also consider that if real honesty is the principle behind a communication, and the pursuit of what’s really true is the basis for a conversation and is followed to completion, then no damage will be done. The purpose of honesty is to get at and reveal the real truth. Discovering and revealing what ever is so, or true, leaves us with what “is” — reality — this doesn’t cause harm, it is simply what’s so. In short, be honest, don’t be an asshole, the two are different.

In trying to figure out if an idea is worthwhile, you need to do two things. The first is to understand what it is - is there enough stuff there to define it, can I use the idea today to make me a better person, can I come up with an opposite point of view that's not trivial, can I come up with an example to show that intuitively the idea makes no sense, or that it's internally inconsistent, or that can discriminate between how it says A is good, but B is bad, ? Second, if you can understand it, you need to decide whether the idea is right or wrong, helpful or harmful, or whatever your moral test.

As I understand this and the message in the video and in your prior write-up, this guy is saying to "Be honest, really honest, because it makes you a better person, but don't hurt people's feelings. And you don't know what being honest is or hurting someone else's feeling really is, and you should accept your state of non-knowing."

I will admit I do not know what this means unless it's just basic common sense -- George Washington chopping down the cherry tree combined with the Golden Rule and a good dose of humility. If you can't figure out what someone means by something, it may mean that the person is all sizzle, no steak.

HH, I'm not sure why you continue to post on this thread as we are surely not having a meaningful conversation.

Two things. First, this quote below from you is an inaccurate amalgamation of Ralston's principles and shows such an immature intellectual grasping that I can only assume you're defending something else or just don't care.

HH wrote:Be honest, really honest, because it makes you a better person, but don't hurt people's feelings. And you don't know what being honest is or hurting someone else's feeling really is, and you should accept your state of non-knowing.

Second, you are right that it is just basic common sense - and yet people lie continuously, unconsciously, to themselves and others.

Lastly, as an afterthought, my guess would be that Ralston would laugh and agree at being "all sizzle, and no steak". Because, it seems what folks like you and Turd define as "steak" is obtaining as much intellectual knowledge as possible, whereas Ralston "preaches" practice, practice, practice of simple concepts.

double post

BucketHead wrote: Because, it seems what folks like you and Turd define as "steak" is obtaining as much intellectual knowledge as possible, whereas Ralston "preaches" practice, practice, practice of simple concepts.

I'm sorry if you're missing my point Bux. As long as you get to the desired end (being the person you want to/are supposed to be), I am not prejudiced either way. One works better for me, another one works better for others-- to each his own. Intellectual knowledge on its own, without focus and the practice of basic truths won't lead to any meaningful enlightenment IMO.

Turd, no offense, but I think you're missing MY point. Just look at your posts in this thread - I've quoted some below. In almost every case, you relate most things to what OTHER people wrote, what OTHER people thought, and what OTHER people believed.

I'm discussing a practice aligned with NOT operating that way.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:Seems to me that that type of belief is easily corruptible for some-- like most of the famous modern Existentialists.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:For example, IMO, Budda and Socrates espoused a lot worth reflecting on to tremendous benefit. Sartre, not so much.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:As Andrew Nelson Lytle put it…

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:This seems very similar to a theme that runs through the Torah.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:I guess I'm thinking of the prophets. They tended to come from outside of the more urban society. Also, Jonah gaining wisdom inside the whale, and probably a few others. Didn't some of the founding Hasidic leaders wander around in the forest before coming back to society and leading?

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:In line with the concept of gnosis (in the Greek, non-Christian, meaning)? That makes sense.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:Turd,

After the destruction of the second temple, the tradition is that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai hid from the Romans in a cave for 13 years, and in that time became so elevated that he wrote the Zohar, which is the foundational text of Jewish mysticism.

There's also a tradition in the Talmud that four great sages sought mystical insight. One died, another went insane, another became a heretic, and only Rabbi Akiva came out of it intact. As a Driven Leaf tells the story of the sage who became the heretic, Elisha ben Abuyah.

As a general matter, the initial chasidic masters engaged in and encouraged fervent prayer, but not withdrawal. They regularly wrote and worked 20-hour days as mayor, advisor, prayer leader, philanthropist, diplomat, as is still practiced by present-day chasiddic rebbes. In yiddish, one who prays fervently but isn't out on the streets doing the hard work helping others is referred to as a tzaddik in peltz, a righteous person in a fur coat.

Very cool, thanks. I'm pretty ignorant of Jewish mysticism, except what I got from Potok, Rosenzweig, and Buber (and I'm no expert). In my tradition, there are lots of people who have gone out into the wilderness or focused on the interior life and emerged sane (Desert Fathers, great medieval mystics, St. Therese of Avila, etc...)-- we tend to ignore those that tried and went crazy.

BucketHead wrote:Turd, no offense, but I think you're missing MY point. Just look at your posts in this thread - I've quoted some below. In almost every case, you relate most things to what OTHER people wrote, what OTHER people thought, and what OTHER people believed.

Not to get carried away, but I think this is why trying to do ontology and epistemology along with "psychology" makes for bad discussion and writing when one hasn't really considered the shadows of thought in which we play.

In virtue of what are we able to discuss or think anything? Always in virtue of something. We are never going to get clear of "beliefs", "prejudices", "other's writings and thoughts". It is only within the context of the already known can one begin to speak of anything. Trivial examples abound, serious examples are tedious to work out on a board.

I don't think that Turd "disqualifies" himself from the discussion by couching his "experience" within the language of "others".

However, since I would suggest again that Ralston provides something which is more rooted in a experiential psycho-somatic practice, I don't find the sophomoric theorizing too edifying.

What Bux said to the Hebe about all this being "common sense" is the point. We lie. We lie. We lie.

The lies which are most insidious in my experience are the ones I am not honest about doing and thus suffer from.

There are lies which I honestly engage in and add almost nil to my suffering.

Then there are the lies which I am not aware of. And often in virtue of those lies, what I believe to be honesty thrives.

As times goes along those previous unaware lies become transparent. And become stuff to work with.

One lie, I won't engage in, is that I can become a tabula rasa and lead a full transparent life.

To believe to be free from genesis, whether cultural or familial is believe in the Utopian promise of the future and fall from paradise in the past. It is a flight from our contingency, connectedness, and finitiude.

So the only thing of interest in discussion like this are the details, that is where both God and the Devil lie.

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:In virtue of what are we able to discuss or think anything? Always in virtue of something. We are never going to get clear of "beliefs", "prejudices", "other's writings and thoughts". It is only within the context of the already known can one begin to speak of anything.

Huh? Original thought or insight is impossible? I don't think you really meant that but my point, from the very beginning, is that Ralston is after experiential insight here.

That last sentence of your quote is the antithesis of this book!. His challenge is for the reader to challenge their reliance on beliefs, get comfortable in a state of not-knowing and use some contemplative techniques to generate insights. If the techniques are effective, yahoo, if not, you (figuratively) are welcome to go back to using 50 cent words to prove your intellectual mastery.

Maybe for some clarity, I think it is this book that mentions a good working definition of "mind" may be simply, your collection of answers. Contemplate that!

I already not know a lot.

BucketHead wrote:Huh? Original thought or insight is impossible?

If you really want to go down this route:

Anything we come up against, we come up against in virtue of understanding of it.

Naming something as a "thought" already shows we are not in the field of new, if "new" means something we have never encountered before. As soon as we understand something as anything, we have understood it in virtue of something already known, and thus nothing is never "completely" new. That last clause is meant both literally and figuratively.

But I take "original" to speak to origins. That which we explicitly do not understand which is already informing our current understanding. This is the tact taken in hermeneutics.

I understand "x" explicitly (I can talk about it, argue about it, etc.) in virtue of "y". "Y" could be informing my understanding all along, but implicitly (I couldn't it raise explicitly).

Many cultural and physical practices demonstrate this kinda understanding. Practitioners of a certain cultural norm, might be blind to any explicit understanding of that norm and yet get along quite well without doing so. This getting along without knowing allows them to engage in other practices explicitly.

Another person comes along unfamiliar with the latent understanding embodied by the community. Their unfamiliarity with the shared understanding of the group raises the possibility that that group can take up their previously latent understanding and make it an object of explicitly inquiry and understanding. This will then affect what previously been understood in light of the previously implicit practice or understanding.

But again, yes. The new, as in the never encountered, never thought, or never understood is impossible.

That fact we understand it merely as "something", means it is not original, but rather the result of an already understood, if implicit origin. What is interesting about what most would claim to be "original" is not its novelty or newness, but rather the fact it raises the possibility to once again consider the origins which allows us to experience its novelty or newness possible the first place.

All serious inquiry leads back to ontology.

But none of this has anything to do with the personal psychic merit Ralston's stuff has to offer. It is a silly summary of why his ontology is sorely lacking in precision and serious engagement with the tradition within which he is speaking.

BucketHead wrote:

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:In virtue of what are we able to discuss or think anything? Always in virtue of something. We are never going to get clear of "beliefs", "prejudices", "other's writings and thoughts". It is only within the context of the already known can one begin to speak of anything.

His challenge is for the reader to challenge their reliance on beliefs, get comfortable in a state of not-knowing and use some contemplative techniques to generate insights.

That is because his ontology is poor as is his epistemology.

Understanding is always in virtue of something. Period. Once you utter "this", you find yourself in the sweep of an enormous linguistic and cultural tide that overwhelms, if considered honestly.

But this does not suggest that one not rest assured in their beliefs, but rather have the humility that whatever comes about, even uncertainty, is within an incredibly fucking elaborate context which one can never know.

That is not-knowing, in the sense of certainty. Not in the sense, I am acting or existing without any knowledge or belief.

To speak or to think is to act within the background of understanding we can never make transparent nor dispose of, but if taken seriously, can allow us to pause and find humility and not-knowing in the sense of being able to make everything explicit and thus certain.

If we are honest, we know more than we can ever say (background knowledge) and know less than we want to (explicit "intellectual" knowledge).

It take a lot of understanding (incalculable), to even begin to raise the question of not-knowing.

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:But again, yes. The new, as in the never encountered, never thought, or never understood is impossible.

What the Hell are you talking about? And keep it at a third grade level for me.

Archimedes sudden realization of the previously intractable problem in which he ran out yelling "Eureka" was already understood by someone?

But to add on to the previous entries. That does not make his suggestions "meaningless". It makes them all the more meaningful.

An appreciation of the sheer amount of knowing it takes for me just to simply type this sentence is staggering. I could never make explicit all the embodied understanding I have in order to do it. And yet I can teach another to type, since the other also shares a large degree of this embodied knowledge and understanding.

Do you not-believe. You can type? That I am reading why you do?

But these are not the questions Ralston really wants to get at (yes that is an act of arrogance to suggest that on my part).

The causes and conditions of my ability to type are the stuff for the wonder and awe of philosophers and scientists and theologians.

His insights for the rest of us lie in their impact in other aspect of thought and action (see thought versus action is a belief, but probably one best suited to be contemplated by those who get paid to do so).

What of my assumptions about my wife and how she should be behave? Here is where I find where his suggestions come into play and practice.

"Not-knowing" is an unfortunate phrase in my opinion since it almost begs to be taken into the realm of the onto-theological.

"Being willing to be surprised and uncertain" might be better.

Again this is why examples of concrete practice are better.

BucketHead wrote:Archimedes sudden realization of the previously intractable problem in which he ran out yelling "Eureka" was already understood by someone?

By him and others (in a manner). How can anything be intelligible if not already understood in some manner?

This is an old saw.

Your example is a poor one to begin with. It is a weak argument about the ability to exist without "knowledge" or "belief".

How could Archimedes have understood the problem as a problem or more provocatively the solution as a solution if it were "completely" new and he existed without knowledge or belief? How did others come to understand it, if they did not already understand it as something. They had to have some understanding in order to understand his solution.

If they had been without any knowledge or belief. Then it would have been impossible. It would be like communicating with moon rocks.

But again, this is not useful Ralston's point (his language at times is unfortunately and excessive). And it is this is what is getting this thread: you, Hebe, and Turd off target with each other.

Again, I would avoid the theories of being and possibility knowledge and stick to the psychic benefits of his practice.

Shit Bux, this is the kinda stuff that drives everyone crazy. Plato's solution was transmigration.

Norman, you strike me as someone who talks a lot about this but doesn't actually do it. I'm more interested in jumping into the pool and seeing what happens. I am enjoying it so far.

HH, this doesn't mean retiring from society and gazing at my navel for weeks on end. It means reading the book for 20 minutes here and there, and then pondering the mental exercises either while on a long drive, while running, or just sitting out behind my house with a glass of wine in my hand. My most recent contemplation was beside the pool in the recliner after a swim. The exercises leave me feeling refreshed and interested in stuff.

Norm, I'm gonna have to tapout. You have reams of incomprehensible statements, many of which you say are irrefutable (period!), but seem easily challenged. Once I challenge them you dismiss me by again attacking my intellect (weak example, old saw).

BucketHead wrote:Norm, I'm gonna have to tapout. You have reams of incomprehensible statements, many of which you say are irrefutable (period!), but seem easily challenged. Once I challenge them you dismiss me by again attacking my intellect (weak example, old saw).

All you have to do is explain how Archimedes was able to "solve" a problem without first understanding it as a problem and recognize the solution without have a working understanding of a "solution."

Again this does not say what Ralston is getting at is without merit, just not the hard case for living without knowledge or belief. Your example demonstrates exactly the opposite.

Practice which allows one to become aware of operating beliefs and having the humility to recognize one can never be aware of all of them and allows more space for surprise, that is what Ralston in his weak case if suggesting and worthwhile.

nafod wrote:Norman, you strike me as someone who talks a lot about this but doesn't actually do it. I'm more interested in jumping into the pool and seeing what happens. I am enjoying it so far.

Case in point.

HTF do you know this? What beliefs are you using? How are you enjoying it.

My point all along is that it is easy to get hung up on the "why", which is the weak case in Ralston, rather than the "how" which is the strong case in Ralston.

So how are you enjoying it? Without recourse to metaphor. I can.

Again. If you are truly suspending belief or being willing to be surprised, you would not act arrogantly enough to determine if I am "doing this" or even more so arrogantly capable of having a calculus to determine if I am "doing this".

As far as you know I am Ralston. And if I were, would that matter?

If you would like examples of how this "works", I can provide many. The "why" of living without knowledge is just nonsense. The very fact that such a theory has to rely on the privation of belief, suggests it relies upon it.

Again, to sum up: a practice to encourage humility, surprise, and wonder. But all this must take place in the field of knowledge and belief. The fact, Ralston and by extension Bux can argue about it makes it so. But that is not a defect, but a strength, otherwise you are stuck with the old rebuke:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

nafod wrote:HH, this doesn't mean retiring from society and gazing at my navel for weeks on end. It means reading the book for 20 minutes here and there, and then pondering the mental exercises either while on a long drive, while running, or just sitting out behind my house with a glass of wine in my hand. My most recent contemplation was beside the pool in the recliner after a swim. The exercises leave me feeling refreshed and interested in stuff.

Sounds pretty sensible to me. I'd be interested in hearing what exercises you found helpful and why.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

nafod wrote:HH, this doesn't mean retiring from society and gazing at my navel for weeks on end. It means reading the book for 20 minutes here and there, and then pondering the mental exercises either while on a long drive, while running, or just sitting out behind my house with a glass of wine in my hand. My most recent contemplation was beside the pool in the recliner after a swim. The exercises leave me feeling refreshed and interested in stuff.

Sounds pretty sensible to me. I'd be interested in hearing what exercises you found helpful and why.

HH, the term helpful probably isn't the right one, but take a look at pages 116-120 to get a sense of exercises the book has you work through. These are interesting thought experiments, and trying them tends to push everything else out of your head. A side bennie.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IUljRh ... &q&f=false