> > 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, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>, Wedtech < > [email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve > Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > To: Friam <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *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/> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve > Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:26 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *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 [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *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 > [email protected] > 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
