Posted by John on November 20, 2001 at 07:28:29:
In Reply to: Re: brain-checking as evolution posted by jonvon on November 19, 2001 at 23:48:13:
: hm. i'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but to clarify, my thoughts about all this don't have anything to do with political correctness. you mention below about wishing to be immersed in life experiences. i think that for me all things are kind of "integrated"; in some senses i am perpetually immersed. its a little hard to explain. i put quotes around the word because it is a very personal concept that i have slowly discovered over time, discovered in the self discovery sense. i'm a bit like bill in that i sort of see all things connected together. in a different way than bill though, bill seems to categorize things with a bit more conscious purpose. he makes actual drawings of things connected all together, he can tell you why this is connected to that and so forth. i do that too in certain areas, but mostly it is just everything is intertwined internally. in other words i see bill putting together these intricate mobiles of all these external objects, like the scientific names for fish and so forth. i do something that is somewhat analogous but in an internal, mostly unconscious sense. if i dig my toes into the sand i might feel something in the backs of my eyes. kinda sorta. i understand building models and prototypes; i do this sort of thing at work a lot. i tend not to do that though when it comes to discussions like these. as soon as we start getting into Point A, i am feeling it out in some cloudy matrix. out pops a thought or a feeling. as bill likes to say, something like this...
Really this is just a semantic problem inherent in electronic communication. I have a very defined idea of what political correctness means, but it carries far different connotations than you probably think because I tend to think metaphorically and have this nasty habit of using common terms in different ways. Bill and I had this problem until we finally talked face to face and realized that we were saying the exact same thing and understood perfectly, so don't bug on the PC thing. I think like you do really. Short hand is that I was thinking of PC in the terms that everyone is afraid of offending others so they won't take a stand that may seem contrary. I don't mind taking a stand because I can separate that from how I feel about people really. I used to make people spitting mad in college, I have some excellent stories.
: so anyway i'm not the best person to discuss these things in the framework of your medieval model (where is this derived from?).
Basically that a "professor" would be someone who believed a certain thing and a "school" was those who agreed with him, as in "school of thought" or "school of art" A class was where the professor would describe his idea and others would question it in an effort to understand it, test it's valididty, or challenge it. If it held up he kept teaching, if not he was either deposed or the school split. Anyway the effect is that learning is a series of arguments and apologies. In our context, I take an idea, you have an idea and we keep shoving them into the middle trying to explain and then we question and try to explain further. Ultimately we won't split schools or anything, but internally, at least for me, I come away understanding your thoughts and having either adjusted mine in light of the flaws you expose, or learning even deeper apology of it.
The thing is many people are too scared to go into the ring with an idea. The concept is foreign to them and think its a personal challenge or a fight. That's why internet is a good forum because it is separated, but in person is better because there is no confusion and you can go out for a drink or something afterward.
: i was trying to separate out the threads in what we were saying. i think we were getting to the same ideas but coming from very different perspectives. i used to think a lot more like you seem to be thinking but now i think otherwise. i don't think a lot of my friends have really gone where i have gone with some of this. i'm probably an outlier, maybe, on the bell curve. at least i don't hear a lot of other people saying the things that roll around in my head.
I am way out there, but bells depend on the surrounding crowd, in the right context we both fit perfectly. I may think totally different in a few months or years as well. I always reserve the right to change my mind.
: it might be that i have swung too far to the other side of that whole "concern for others" thing. live and let live is what i say. also i really DON'T feel concerned for others who are less secure. i have no idea what less secure means. how do you define that for someone else? i tend to take a darwinian "survival of the fittest" stance on this, or a stance that perhaps relies too heavily on fate. i figure if someone wants to become involved in a life of faith it is god drawing that person (as you mentioned earlier). i might pray for someone or even talk to someone about something if it feels right to do it. i'm open to being a part of the drawing,so to speak, but i'm wary of it. i've seen a lot of abuse in the name of "god's will". i choose to give respect to everyone as much as i can.
Survival of the fittest! This sparks a book of thoughts in me, but I'm resisting the urge for now.
: i just can't even begin to understand why you would put yourself through it. you mention below about not wanting to play around with futility. i can't think of anything more futile than having the kind of conversations you describe. your business though...
Wait, what did I describe? THIS type of conversation is futile, or the one with a person that is using props? THIS type of conversation is far from futile to me as I described above. The others I DON'T engage in anymore because they ARE futile, that was my point.
: : I'd love to talk about this more. Did you ever get to read my Wilderness Essays?
: nope, where do i find them?
I emailed them to both you and Paula awhile ago.
: this reminds me a bit of tantra. tantric saints seek enlightenment via experience. which is a foreign concept (at least in some senses) to the mystical model we are generally presented with in christianity. certainly our monks are seeking an experience, but it is an experience in which the instruments used in tantra (sex, alcohol, spicy food, whatever) are eliminated as completely as possible so that another kind of experience can take place. i'm not saying you are trying to be a tantric saint by any means, i just dig thinking about the similarities between things here and there.
I like tantra too, for the same reasons. Unfortunately I hate wading through all of the new-agey mish-mash custom psuedo-spiritual crap that tends to go along with it. As an aside you can't pick and choose spiritual disciplines like a salad bar.