Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:43:04 +0100
From: glove <email@example.com>
To: Multiple recipients of <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 10:15 PM
Subject: the four levels as awareness
>hello Maggie and squad
i sent this message days ago, but apparently it was lost somewhere in
cyberspace. i will try again.
>Maggie, you are welcome, and thank you for giving me a challenge and
>allowing me to challenge you as well. it is indeed alot of fun.
>Interesting, this term "chreode". Where does it come from?
>the term 'chreode' was originally coined by C.H. Waddington to account for
>the formation of morphogenetic fields and to account for the temporal
>of development. its from the greek 'chre', it is necessary, and 'hodos',
>route or path. Rupert Sheldrake uses morphogenetic field theory in his
>hypothesis of causative formation, which he outlines in his 'New Science of
>Life' , and that is where i came across it the first time.
>I don't think that the fact that a being's internal reality analog has
>in it matters as much as whether or not that being has an internal
>and can use it to control the social world of self and other.
>Maggie, since i am a bit more familar with a precessional universe than
>(i have been thinking that way for over 25 years) i take for granted others
>know some of the rules of a precessional universe. the most useful rule
>involves the seemingly inconsequential events that happen around us that we
>tend to gloss over. these seemingly inconsequential events are precession
>action...the very heart of dynamic quality.
>take the little micro-second of a gap between the time we see something and
>the time our minds can turn it into something we can use. its that little
>bitty inconsequently insignificantly small micro-second that makes us what
>we are and creates our entire reality, but no one ever notices it. that
>micro-second is dynamic quality, and always there in all aspects of our
>life. and the little gaps in reality are another example of dynamic
>quality...we gloss over them, or rather our minds have learned how to gloss
>over them...but they are still with us in all aspects of life. perhaps by
>learning to recognize these dynamically charged moments, we can perhaps
>channel into them and make higher ratchet leaps into the static quality we
>can all agree with.
>by the 'internal reality analog', do you mean the internal discursive
>dialogue we have going on in our heads all the time? most people take that
>for thinking...but that is not real thinking, it is talking to ourselves to
>establish the self as a real entity, to separate ourselves from the rest of
>the universe and keep ourselves grounded. real thinking comes from
>if i am ever really troubled by a question, i soak myself in it, and then i
>do zazen for 15 minutes or a half hour or so. when i come back to the
>computer, i am completely blank, yet the answer pours out of me so fast i
>can hardly write it down. that is what i take for 'real' thinking. and the
>odd thing about it is, when i read what i have written in this manner, its
>like someone else has written it. i dont even remember writing it down or
>where the idea came from. i feel i may be tapping into what has been termed
>the 'second' attention.
>the internal discursive dialogue is absolutely essential to keep us
>in the 'real' world of subjects and objects. if we give up that ability
>(incredibly difficult but doable), we are gone from this world in a very
>real sense. the internal discursive dialogue is more than likely a
>manifestation of a deeper part of ourselves, a part we are not aware of at
>all, except perhaps through dreaming. this is the part of ourselves that
>allows us to create our awareness like the radio is creating music (i know
>its a weak analogy but i could think of nothing else that would really
>convey what i mean).
>But arent' they both useful constructs? Without evolution (change over
>time) and self-awareness, the universe is just rocks. It must value
>expansions to itself or they wouldnt be there. ;-)
>Maggie, these are the most useful and powerful constructs in reality, no
>doubt about it. without evolution and self-awareness, nothing would be real
>to us. perhaps that is the answer that has been troubling you about SOM
>(your Aha! post to Bo). we HAVE to operate in a subject/object type of
>reality, otherwise we could not function as we do. but to say the way we
>function (Subject/Object Metaphysics) is reality is wrong. and so what Bo
>said is correct, subject/object thinking is the highest moral value we
>because we MUST differentiate between our-self and the rest of the universe
>in order to communicate with others and become aware of the higher layers
>society and intellect, but we have to be aware that its our perception of
>reality we are dealing with and not reality itself. that is where SOM goes
>astray. it says our perception IS reality.
>because again, this seems like an inconsequential difference, it is a
>precessional sign of dynamic quality at work. it means this is something we
>must pay attention to in order to further our understanding. as you enjoy
>lists-of-four, i enjoy signs of precession at work.
>thanks again Maggie, for your responses to mine.
>best wishes to all,
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST