Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Anyone on here read Prometheus Rising, by R A Wilson?
Hello all.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through Prometheus Rising, by Robert Anton Wilson, and so far, it's...
Hmm. I stopped writing. I'm not sure what words to use to describe how I feel about it. The ideas in there about sociobiology seem very important, and I feel the need to discuss some of them. It seemed like the kind of book that Carl or the followers of Carl (Abbottists? Abbottites? What about "Abbostles"?) might well have read at some point. Anyone?
If you haven't, you probably should. It's helped me bang a few more nails in the coffin of my belief in free will, so anyone else that's grappling with this issue, I heartily recommend it. Wilson describes all the stages of programming/imprinting in humans, and the whole book seems to be geared towards breaking the reader out of any narrow-minded partial worldview.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through Prometheus Rising, by Robert Anton Wilson, and so far, it's...
Hmm. I stopped writing. I'm not sure what words to use to describe how I feel about it. The ideas in there about sociobiology seem very important, and I feel the need to discuss some of them. It seemed like the kind of book that Carl or the followers of Carl (Abbottists? Abbottites? What about "Abbostles"?) might well have read at some point. Anyone?
If you haven't, you probably should. It's helped me bang a few more nails in the coffin of my belief in free will, so anyone else that's grappling with this issue, I heartily recommend it. Wilson describes all the stages of programming/imprinting in humans, and the whole book seems to be geared towards breaking the reader out of any narrow-minded partial worldview.
Comments
It is my view that the eye of the beholder is the crucial element in what one sees. The world is self evident, and most obvious if one isn't blind-sided by one's desire and worry (i.e., one's story). That is why Buddha and other 'old ones' (Lao Tzu's) saw 'it' so clearly without the aid of any sociobiology or other science. The way I see it, science only supports what has long been known. More data isn't what is needed--better interpretation is. And the quality of interpretation depends on the mind of the interpreter, which is influence by one's needs/desires and fears/worries. The Achilles heal lies within.
Of course, that's not to say it wouldn't be an enjoyable read if it says what you want to hear. Oh my, what a bah hum bug I be!
Come to think of it, I'm reading a lot at the moment, and all over the place I'm finding taoist ideas... I do wonder a lot how much of it is empirically "there" and how much is my own projection... What if a growing sense of mysterious sameness is a loss of reality... Which bring us, of course, to the question of what is "reality" anyway? Maybe that's what we are doing, on purpose. From a certain point of view, we explorers of taoism, Buddhism, etc, are deliberately making ourselves crazy. From another view, we're making ourselves sane.
But the same ideas come up time and again. Why does some of the stuff it says in the Upanishads fit so neatly next to some of the stuff in the Tao Te Ching? Why do the teachings of Buddha and Christ, the Tao Te Ching, the Sufi teachings, and probably many more (I'm still reading) line up so well? They all seem to be pointing to one mysterious truth...
But I don't think there's anything wrong with looking into sociobiology as part of this quest. It's just one more viewpoint, no more or less valid than the sayings of the Yogi. Indeed, people have known these truths for thousands of years, here and there, but when modern science expresses them, it's often done in clearer (albeit less appropriate, therefore) language. Quality of interpretation depends partly on the mind of the interpreter and partly on the wealth of collected information, and I intend to collect from as many sources as I can find.
Such is my (stereotypical thinking hippy) quest to find god (in an agnostic-cycling-into-pantheist kind of way).
The by-path is the supposition of pushing anything that is "geared towards breaking the reader out of any narrow-minded partial worldview". As I see it, one is only able to understand that which one already intuitively knows. This make the idea teaching anything 'outside the box' a cultural hoodwink of sorts.
That sound promising. The rapidity of change you feel may be more emotional that "empirically there" as you put it below.
I would say that by relying on thought as a way of connecting to "reality" we have impaired our intuitive sense of reality. This leaves us feeling deeply disconnected from the rest of "reality" (the universe, creation, 'this'). So, certainly, we are all trying to reconnect as best we can, yet we always shoot ourselves in the foot with thinking. Some, "the explorers" attempt to resolve this by 'thinking outside the box'. Others hang on to the shore of home—their cultural dogma (political, religious, scientific, music, sports… if you can name it, it has a dogma base. The former are the "crazy", the later are the "sane", at least in the eyes of the later.
When the mind leaves it tribal dogma and see the world as it is, mysterious sameness is all that one can see.
From the "more or less valid" standpoint, all thoughts and points of view are equal. These are all expressions of our struggle to make sense of it all. Ironically, the attempt to make sense of it is futile. Reality is only partly 'sensible'. More useful for the many is a dogma that limits itself to the useful. Stop signs and Buddha 4 Truths come immediately to mind. For the few, nothing suffices, thought stop signs and Buddha's Truths sure help. In the end, we are sailing off into the unknown. Perhaps every thinking human is; we are just more intent about it.
As usual Dan, interesting thoughts. Here is where you may end up if you're lucky?... :-?...or unlucky?
[chref=10]When your discernment penetrates the four quarters Are you capable of not knowing anything?[/chref]
Just dropping in to say, yep, by-path, you were right, I'd say. I wandered around for a couple of days thinking complicated exciting thoughts, but oddly, the promises these thoughts made started to stress me out, I realised. So, tonight I found myself comparing translations of the Tao Te Ching (and finding new meaning; your own translations have been a helpful perspective), and realised you'd called it, so I felt it was my duty as a loyal Abbottist (you never did choose which name you wanted) to openly defer to your wisdom.
Arigato, sensei.
As far as "complicated exciting thoughts" goes, this perspective is priceless: [chref=36]If you would have a thing laid aside, You must first set it up[/chref], and so one. Likewise, folly must precedes wisdom. It is just the natural way. As best you can, [chref=16]return[/chref] and again [chref=28]return[/chref] . Consolidate.
Now, centertaoist I like, a lot. The middle of the middle path. Balancing on the median of existence while traffic whizzes past in either direction. Well, as you rightly point out, any name is not the constant name. Makes me wonder how Jesus' name would have been pronounced in his time. Not the way we have it, in any case.