Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Drowning in the Sea of Existence - (Weekly Harangue #118)

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in Extended Remix

Layman Pascal's
Spirit'd Mini-Books

DROWNING IN THE SEA OF EXISTENCE

This present text is the extended remix of a recent harangue (entitled “The Ship of Fools”). Despite being pleased with the style & tone of that article, I have come to believe that its main moral point eluded the conscious appreciation of many readers. So the following words are perhaps a little less artistic, and not nearly as succinct, but I think they will make the internal logic and issues more explicit. I hope you will forgive the replay and length of this subtle & interesting topic...

The primary purpose of this writing is to compare two different ways in which we can encounter the feeling of being. This being-ness is a very highly prized quality in the most advanced spiritual & human development systems. Buddhist adepts teach that divinity (or “enlightenment”) exists everywhere, in everything -- and that we can make contact with it by properly contemplating the suchness of anything. The lucid realism of Reality is available in our direct experience of the is-ness of a tall mountain, the that-ness of a simple stone, the “voila!” of a superb blazing sunrise.

Such a doctrine is widely considered be both highly sophisticated & very sacred. Exalted & holy. So we might be somewhat surprised to discover a similar doctrine lurking in a low & popular form of commercial entertainment -- specifically a parody of a hip hop music video (starring Saturday Night Live’s Andy Samberg & his band “The Lonely Island”). Their song “I’m on a Boat” pokes fun at rap music’s obsession with ostentatious displays of material wealth while also mocking the silly human ego-habit of puffing ourselves up pretentiously when standing on the proud deck of an expensive yacht. This tune -- regardless of our personal affinity for it -- is a bit of jaunty, robust social critique wherein intelligently sensitive people do ludicrously crass things in order to provoke a liberating mood of humorous and progressive cultural edginess. That sounds fine -- but who cares? What is useful in all of this if we are not fans of Hip Hop, SNL, commercial culture or wanton profanity?

Well, we should be quite curious and concerned precisely because it is our job to locate living wisdom and existential insight absolutely everywhere. We are not yet good friends of “growth” or “dharma” unless we strive to uncover it from within every nook & cranny of our crazy culture. I would recommend watching this video a few times -- as many as necessary until your temperamental personal attitude of liking or disliking it goes away... until you “get over” the style and begin to empathize with the deeper structural intelligence of its creators. Not imagining that they are hidden sages encoding secrets into songs but rather that the structure of their unwisdom is a leaping off point into our own wisdom. If we make this effort we will discover something very remarkable at the heart of the song’s lyrics:

I'm on a boat, I'm on a boat

Everybody look at me

'Cause I'm sailing on a boat

[...]

Straight flowing on a boat on the deep blue sea

[...]

But this ain't Seaworld, this is as real as it gets

I'm on a boat, motherfucker, don't you ever forget

[...]

Get the fuck up, this boat is real!

[...]

Yeah, never thought I'd be on a boat

[...]

I'm on a boat, I'm on a boat

Take a good hard look

At the motherfucking boat!

These words -- despite their redundant silliness -- continuously assert the mere "is-ness" of being-on-a-boat. It is really a contemplation of suchness -- just like in High Buddhism. The ironic performers are demonstrating the presence of a remarkable surplus enjoyment that is intimately connected to the intentional invocation of the precise quality of reality that is possessed by any Real thing. Very curious. How can such a preposterous form of entertainment be performing such a rare invocation? There is a very odd juxtaposition here between profound & profane versions of the human encounter with Beingness.

Is the high-in-the-low? Or is the low-in-the-high? Is Esoteric Buddhism only repeating some pointless assertion trick used in “I’m on a Boat”? Or is the juvenile music video actually expressing the holiest wisdom of the Himalayan saints? Should we dismiss both -- or praise both? Such a delicate decision may end up determining many things about our most basic existential relationship to this world and to ourselves.

Devaluing both would be provocative, interesting, but if we ponder our options carefully, we will probably realize that our maximum personal benefit will most likely be attained by giving them both the benefit of the doubt -- assuming that they are both sublime & revelatory facets of the transcendental Truth of the All-Being in which we utterly inhere. We can glimpse something intriguing in the similarity between High and Low profundity but to assimilate it more deeply we need to be friends with all sides of this issue. We need, if our our wish in life is to grow and deepen as much as possible, to cultivate an attitude which always expects to discover the highest-within-the-lowest... which is always hungry to integrate the most diverse energies of our personal and cultural reality.

It is one thing (a common thing) to claim that we embrace the universal presence of the Divine & trust in the hypothetical ubiquity of universal Truth. Yet it is often quite another thing to actually seek out and discern the wisdom secrets that may be disguised by the crude, the obscure, the conflicting, the grotesque, the ironic, the brash, etc. Our holiest truths must be shared equally between reverence & irreverence.

If we want to grow ever more deeply into the reality of our own existence then we undoubtedly must stay hungry for any new pathways, high or low, sensible or strange, which bring our intelligence and our feelings into an engagement with the issue of isness. Here, then, is one more invocation. Here is another glimpse of humanity's effort to bring the background quality of existence into the foreground of feeling & attention. Partway between high & low culture is this following snippet of theatrical dialogue from the well-regarded play (and film) “Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead”. This excerpt echoes the video “I’m on a boat” by its whimsical combination of a humorous nautical motif with a conscious pondering on the subject of Beingness. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, of course, are notable minor characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet who are carrying the famous question “To be or not to be?” into some strange waters...

Guildenstern

Do you think death could possibly be a boat?

Rosencrantz

No, no, no... death is -- not. Death isn't. You take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative: not being. You can't not be on a boat.

Rosencrantz

I've frequently not been on boats.

Guildenstren

No, no, no... what you've been is not on boats.

Rosencrantz

I wish I was dead.

Humorous. Apparently they never thought they’d BE on a boat. Again, if we open our minds to the Nature of Isness we may start to find that this investigation is going on absolutely.. everywhere.

Amun-Ra, the Egyptian Lord of Being, travels through the Underworld in his Solar Boat:

Layman Pascal

Please contact us to (1) comment (2) suggest a topic (3) receive a complete list of previous "harangues" (4) add a someone to this mailing list (5) unsubscribe. These talks & brief essays are available for re-use in any appropriate context.

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Made Me Think of Another..

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Mark Grammer

Two Boats: http://tao-how.blogspot.com/2011/02/tao-how-all-boats-are-empty.html

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 7th, 2012 by admin

This comment has been deleted by the author.

25 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Isness?

Posted February 9th, 2012 by Mark Evans in response to [Comment Deleted]

I love being on boats.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

exactly

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hey Shalk,

I am |(clearly, I hope) not trying to suggest a status of "high-level contemplator" for these modern music clowns. Of course they aren't consciously presenting suchness! My point is precisely that we can find it here nevertheless -- and not just here. In theory, certainly, we can find it anywhere. In practice we like to find it where our sentiments are uplifted or where we have "good reason" to believe that higher consciousness and wisdom are on parade. But to extend the realm of our finding we must move into a nether-region (underworld) where 'beingness" is being overtly (regardless of "awareness") referenced.

Our instinct to legitimize or not legitimize in these matters is itself suspicious.

What I am in no way doing is praising this video-song. Neither from the perspective of personal preference nor from the perspective of their wisdom. It is just a semi-arbitrary referent with which to draw attention into the question of how we should hold our own investigations of being -- and how we can have a broader context for the assertion of reality "over" reality.

Just as we need to overlook contingent factors like tone & genre, we also need to overlook our estimates of the intentions and developmental status of the people sending the message if we are to find all the different types of structures by which human beings enter to the issue of being-ness. What I mean by "low culture" is precisely that which is not consciously or intentionally participating in the invocation which is structurally resembles. The fact that we can find this structure in "mere comedy" is precisely the point.

The song-video, the snippet of the play, the Buddhist doctrine, etc. are all different ways in which the Being comes to presence in human thought. But our tendency is to de-legitimate almost every one of these appearance. If it were not so we would be overloaded constantly by considerations of suchness high & low. But we should be increasingly ready to violate our own standards in this regard. Assuming we want to feel, see and know Being in all of its facets... not merely when it falls from the mouths of the wise.

What could be more "flattening" than our reluctance to ascribe depth to the maximize possible forms?

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 7th, 2012 by admin in response to exactly

This comment has been deleted by the author.

7 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

We are building insight -- not ascribing it.

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hey Shalk,

Just wanted to agree with about the importance of distinction making as an alternative to flattening -- especially in regards to the non-presumption of enlightenment on the part of the suchness of 3 peas. However, the point I groping toward occurs in a domain which is supplemental to that consideration.

We are normally looking at two ways of approaching the Being question which is related to the issue of Zen. Our ordinary approaches are to either

(1) ascribe it to the highest, wisest, most conscious, and

(2) to ascribe it generally to everything. In this latter form we may "find" it in Lil Wayne or 3 peas in a pod.

However there is another dimension in addition to these -- the dimension in which there is an overt, but presumably non-wise, structural assertion of the qualitative status of Being. Perhaps this dimension may be sourced in error, comedy or foolishness. It does not matter in particular because we are specifically examining an issue that is unrelated to the conscious understanding and intentions of the communicators. Andy Samberg may or may have any ability to understand what I am saying. Just as Tom Stoppard, author of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead may likewise draw a blank -- or not.

So we are neither looking at the issue of "Are these people knowingly communicating higher understanding?" nor the issue of "Can't anything whatsoever be said to display Suchness?" Those are both interesting areas of investigation but we are herein concerned primarily with a different, very particular question:

"When encountering a demonstrated communication which overtly refers to the mere fact of "being", wherever we find it, should we proceed as if Being is being invoked -- or not? If not then we must be at least skeptics in our dealings with Zen. If so then we must be charitable to the non-intentional invocations."

My point is just this - that there is a very interesting "thing" about Being, a causal factor, which is hard to grasp and which comes to presence precisely where we enter into speculation about the similarity/difference between two qualitatively distinct communications of the simplicity of the status of presumed reality.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Hi Layman,

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Annie in response to We are building insight -- not ascribing it.

I like your question Layman but it begs to ask; can we find exteriors (culture and society) that gives us the freedom and resonance to proceed? Your questioning is based on the assumption that it is a shared view, there must be exteriors that will be in agreement.

"When encountering a demonstrated communication which overtly refers to the mere fact of "being", wherever we find it, should we proceed as if Being is being invoked -- or not?We are free to proceed as if Being has been invoked but we are not sharing in the collective correlates to that particular perspective. Phenomenon arises within each layer or level of being, outside of that level, the same arising creates a new phenomenon giving new meaning to that event. But, part or all of that meaning is based on a shared experience, without that, there can be very little Order to Beingness.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

exploitation vs. communion in intercultural sharing

Posted February 8th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to Hi Layman,

That's an important supplemental inquiry, Annie.

For me there seem to be two closely related issues here.

First is -- Where is the culture that gives us the freedom to proceed? Of course we are that culture. It only partly exists and is being generated. One of the ways in which it is being generated is through the wanton exploitation of structures from other cultures/levels which bear a resemblance to our interests. This is the approach taken in my post. It basically amounts to the construction of halfway houses between the culture producing the content and the culture we wish to create.

Secondly there is this question of sharing the cultural correlates out of which a structure (even one we are cheerfully exploiting for our own purposes due to mere "resemblance of the higher") has emerged. However this should not be too difficult. The higher we climb the more experiential fluidity we possess. Of course we cannot readily revert to an earlier stage but we should have the basic tools in us to translate a context in manner that allows us to share the experience upon which it is based. If we can connect with physicality, humor, suffering, hopefulness -- very basic tools -- then we get largely in touch with the "other" reality which we are re-interpreting from our own level.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

I may have a limited view to the examples you use throughout this thread

Posted February 9th, 2012 by Annie in response to exploitation vs. communion in intercultural sharing

I wonder if proceeding would include identifying the context that makes the event limited (non suchness, or non beingness)? What prevents the observer from observing suchness or beingness?

It seems to me that in making the assertion; the mundane can and does hold the extraordinary, is radically delusional to the culture that creates the phenomenon, and quite possibly the actual cause of the mundane event. This event or pointing out suchness is only applicable to a specific culture or level of development.

I am not sure if you are asking; can we see the extraordinary (suchness) of everything, or are you asking can we share it? What seems to help me is the play of opposites, the nature of duality and understanding that what we choose along any line of resistance can also be viewed as a bipartisan.

In the case of the theme for this thread; we are identifying something that can be pointed to precisely because we are looking at it from that culture and that level of development. If we really want to identify suchness from a new level of being, it might be helpful to identify it according to humor in all 4 quadrants.

One of the most poignant talks I heard Ken give was when he referred to Mary Magdalene asking if anyone had her number…the Whore? He went on to ask; is a monk driving a sports car unspiritual, or a prostitute unspiritual? If we follow the example that Jesus adhered to, we would make these radical assertions and tell the most outrageous stories to disrupt the mindset of the current understanding. Jarring assertions set in the context of the current culture—can be seen with humor and outrage when viewed as the object of ridicule. At that point we can investigate the ordering of truth, beauty and goodness without the previous inhabited bias.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The Trans-Ridiculous, Post-Profane, Perpetually Investigated Status of the...

Posted February 9th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to I may have a limited view to the examples you use...

Hi Annie,

>I wonder if proceeding would include identifying the context that makes the event limited (non suchness, or non beingness)? What prevents the observer from observing suchness or beingness?

I was at first tempted to say that this identification-of-the-limiting-context is precisely the means by which the observer comes to detect suchness. Yet I hesitate here. Suchness must have two (at least) styles of presentation in human experience. The first is conscious -- and yes this apparently requires a vision that notices the structure of limitation which is preventing the Encounter. Yet there can presumably also be unconscious experiencing of suchness which, despite exhibiting some weirdness, can occur within any limiting context. What I have been calling the "structural presentation of Being" is perhaps better understood as an unconscious articulation within a context that is not itself able to observe suchness owing precisely to its embeddedness within that context.

>It seems to me that in making the assertion; the mundane can and does hold the extraordinary, is radically delusional to the culture that creates the phenomenon, and quite possibly the actual cause of the mundane event. This event or pointing out suchness is only applicable to a specific culture or level of development. I am not sure if you are asking; can we see the extraordinary (suchness) of everything, or are you asking can we share it? What seems to help me is the play of opposites, the nature of duality and understanding that what we choose along any line of resistance can also be viewed as a bipartisan.

I am very specifically looking at the foreground appearances of Suchness which are (a) NOT consciously understood from a cultural frame in which such detection is appropriate (b) not merely explained by the fact that we can see the extraordinary suchness anywhere. I am looking to a third option. I am asserting that this look, regardless of its success, will be of benefit to us. This look consists of an attempt by those who are developed enough in their understanding of suchness to compare and contrast it with apparently non-understanding, but nevertheless overt, demonstrations of that basic psychological maneuvre which permits a conscious being to inspect the beings of something which IS. This is an odd move. Our appreciation for contemplative traditions should not deceive us into thinking we fully comprehend the ramifications of seeing "being" on top of "being." This surplus assertion of existence, almost wanton, very promising, is in need of ongoing investigation. And a good place to start is wondering about how it may or may not show up where it "shouldn't be" (i.e. where the appropriate context is lacking but where, nonetheless, something more is going on than merely the fact that the "IS" resides everywhere).

>In the case of the theme for this thread; we are identifying something that can be pointed to precisely because we are looking at it from that culture and that level of development. If we really want to identify suchness from a new level of being, it might be helpful to identify it according to humor in all 4 quadrants.

I agree about the humour & the quadrants. If we want to get better at being-with-being then what should we do? Obviously contemplate suchness wherever we chose to find it. But what else? Merely to assert its omnipresence does not change us very much. We should look, we should want to look, across boundaries, in strange places, wherever we find a "sign" that resembles the presencing of the "merely" Real. And it is not enough to go across boundaries which would stop others -- we need to go across our own boundaries. And if we are comfortable at both ends of the teeter-totter of opposites? Well then we should start looking somewhere in the middle ground...

>One of the most poignant talks I heard Ken give was when he referred to Mary Magdalene asking if anyone had her number…the Whore? He went on to ask; is a monk driving a sports car unspiritual, or a prostitute unspiritual? If we follow the example that Jesus adhered to, we would make these radical assertions and tell the most outrageous stories to disrupt the mindset of the current understanding. Jarring assertions set in the context of the current culture—can be seen with humor and outrage when viewed as the object of ridicule. At that point we can investigate the ordering of truth, beauty and goodness without the previous inhabited bias.

That is, to me, sublime. The unusual juxtaposition is our great ally. Those who would be friends of the dharma/logos, and not merely listeners or affirmers, must think always about some new way to re-generate it... in some other odd, excluded, devalued, or mundane domain of life.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

back again

Posted February 11th, 2012 by Annie in response to The Trans-Ridiculous, Post-Profane, Perpetually...

Hi Layman,

I apologize for my delay in getting back to this, but honestly your words often strike me so deeply that I need time to grasp the extent of its meaning. During the week while I was busy caring for my grandkids I was reflecting on the "third option"; I am looking to a third option. I am asserting that this look, regardless of its success, will be of benefit to us. This look consists of an attempt by those who are developed enough in their understanding of suchness to compare and contrast it with apparently non-understanding, but nevertheless overt, demonstrations of that basic psychological maneuvre which permits a conscious being to inspect the beings of something which IS.

What comes to light when understanding is contrasted with non-understanding? I suspect something quite different than just merely understanding. Suchness can be seen as a unique adornment residing in that particular misunderstanding, the flavor of that specific manifestation. We are removing our self from the generic suchness of everything and focusing on the specific suchness of a single occurrence. More than that though, we are also creating the suchness of that manifestation through the act of consciousness.

This also reminds me of the concept of SIN, we often say that it is missing the mark...but what mark are we failing to hit? Every act or movement chooses one direction over another, in itself it has the range of good or evil, right or wrong. But, there is yet another step and decision we make, we can hold all movement as its forward momentum without its limiting snapshots. Suchness would have to remain as good or right at whatever point we stop to form the picture or take the words to articulate. Misunderstanding is the structure we use to make this acutely obvious.

Here is something that I have been observing in myself; I feel annoyed or dismayed by the perspectives of some. I feel myself not wanting to cross those boundaries into a communal space of suchness, shared in that perspective. As I witness it today, it is both resistance on my part and an impenetrable boundary on their part, but yet I suspect that we both miss the unique manifestation that this Space could articulate.

I have some hesitation in defining suchness according to a creative act, but those that declare it via those that are embedded in it, are not maintaining a pre-given orthodox, rather the declaration is given by the participation of both parties.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

justified

Posted February 11th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to back again

Hi Annie,

Sin deviates from the "line" of a discipline, whether organic, traditional or experimental. Part of the message of the Christian Gospel seems to be that we cannot perfectly meet the mark. From personal experience this is obvious. The concept of Sin serves to draw us into the ambiguous, oscillating space between the "mark" and our "missings". Presumably this allows us to eventually understand the perfect suchness of our failings AND the inadequacy of our understanding of what is Right. But this all arises only in the struggle to do what is Right. A third option arises in practice. An option to grasp the thread of suchness in a much finer, subtler fashion -- not just everywhere, not just anywhere, not just because of me, not just without me. The crux.

>Here is something that I have been observing in myself; I feel annoyed or dismayed by the perspectives of some. I feel myself not wanting to cross those boundaries into a communal space of suchness, shared in that perspective. As I witness it today, it is both resistance on my part and an impenetrable boundary on their part, but yet I suspect that we both miss the unique manifestation that this Space could articulate. I have some hesitation in defining suchness according to a creative act, but those that declare it via those that are embedded in it, are not maintaining a pre-given orthodox, rather the declaration is given by the participation of both parties.

One of the beautiful things on Well-Put-Again-Terry's "beyond awakening" audiocasts is his articulated conclusion to "do what he would have wanted to do if our crises can be solved -- even if they can't". I know this hesitation that you speak of. What I do is

(a) know that it's okay for the Other to fail to make good use of the space

(b) not act from an assumption of separation

(c) use every opportunity to clarify my own understanding... knowing that I will grow sharpest where the sharpening stone is hard & flat.

I don't want to miss the opportunity. It is a fragment of delicate sacredness. But I will miss it. Many times I will. And even if I don't ... will the Other? Perhaps. Only perhaps. So I must make spirit-practice out of communication as best I can. Then it will never be wasted. And probably I will gain a strength to reach where I might otherwise hesitate.

The creative affirmation of suchness seems "unjustified". It IS (not always, but often) unjustified by the Other, by the circumstance. But possibly it has another strength besides justification? Possibly it wants something from me, wants to show me something, wants to confuse me and draw me deeper through a half-willful act which enters ambiguous territory and most likely demands an unreasonable burden of tolerance.

In the end I would rather be the Justifer than the one who felt justified.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 7th, 2012 by admin in response to [Comment Deleted]

This comment has been deleted by the author.

14 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

expanding

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Annie in response to [Comment Deleted]

I see your point but here is another one; those on the boat will not see it as the superficial escapes of the elite, rather they will see significance in having achieved their specific desire. The joke is made funny because we have determined that "desire" and "achievement" is a shallow and materialistic pursuit, not worthy of the sacred. Layman takes one step back, objectifying the humor as one who participates in it, but no less objectifiable by the fact that we can witness the humor within the humor.

It seems to me that all Layman is doing is looking at another domain with the correlates of this perspective, utilizing the known assumptions by adding another dimension that may not be so readily understood.

If you say that Layman's perspective is wrong...because the music participates in another domain, you are correct in choosing the domain's discourse. But Layman is also correct from the domain he speaks in, his view is capturing the objects of the prior view and giving his perspective.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

zen & the art of critiquing zen-related titles

Posted February 7th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

From an aesthetic perspective I would certainly vote in favor this titular moratorium. However, there also IS a Zen of anything/whatever. And Zen itself was historically notable for its use of the trivial, mundane, etc. as dharmic analogies. Today we have a relatively "high" sense of the status and aesthetic of Zen. We (including me) feeling a vague nausea where Zen is commercially extended to any old fake-profundity. Yet we must also be on the alert for the real profundity within the fake profundity.

The more we see a commonality in the impressive and not-so-impressive gestures of pointing-to-truth... the more we are compelled to make a kind of choice about whether to dismiss it all or hold it all as sacred. Probably we will do a bit of both. Either way, we will deepen by trying.

Here's what I do: I find "suchness" in things I like which are natural, wise, vetted, conscious, brilliant, etc. But I am an idiot to do this. I cannot afford to accord with my own use of genres when it comes to matters of existence-as-existence.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 7th, 2012 by admin in response to zen & the art of critiquing zen-related titles

This comment has been deleted by the author.

11 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 7th, 2012 by admin in response to [Comment Deleted]

This comment has been deleted by the author.

10 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Pre-trans

Posted February 8th, 2012 by Ambo Suno in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hi Shalk.

This may be a place for me to insert something I noticed, without it being a total non-sequitur, regarding the pre-trans fallacy that Ken has so well and persistently brought to our attention.

The following quote is from a biography I am reading by Ray Monk called Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. The fifth paragraph of the book says, "In later life, when someone once remarked to him that the childlike innocence of G E Moore was to his credit, Wittgenstein demurred. 'I can't understand that', he said, 'unless it's also to a child's credit. For you aren't talking of the innocence a man has fought for, but of an innocence which comes from a natural absence of a temptation.'"

This sounds a bit to me like a pre-trans noticing and of course predates Ken's recognition. Wittgenstein probably did not delve so far into this as Ken and make the recognition that can come to us so articulable. Yet, cool, that someone else found a way to voice this confusing conflation that is raised from time to time about people and situations.

Thanks.

ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 9th, 2012 by admin in response to Pre-trans

This comment has been deleted by the author.

7 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

I may not get your meaning, but I may.

Posted February 9th, 2012 by Ambo Suno in response to [Comment Deleted]

Maybe you just suggested that my example was a pop equivalency? And thus undercutting the One Thing that Layman was working at? And maybe I am disrespecting this exchange or thread? I'm really not sure I get your meaning, but does your characterization of Wittgenstein via your vignette seem to discredit him and this pre trans reference by me?

If not, ok. If so, maybe your reply is a bit harsh, but no major surprise, and ok.

If you feel my post as a serious transgressive distraction from your and Layman's important work, you need not reply further and continue the derailing. Or you may.

ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 9th, 2012 by admin in response to I may not get your meaning, but I may.

This comment has been deleted by the author.

5 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

vitgenshtein

Posted February 9th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

Once, Wittgenstein was talking with a friend who was in the hospital. The friend said, "I feel like a dog that has just been run over."

Wittgenstein was enormously offended, and said, "How do you know what a dog feels like when it has been run over?"

His point was - the liberties being taken were too much for him to accept in the case.

Possibly. But, if he was Me, his point would have been that the combination of the validity of the obviousness of the dog's feeling (structurally) & the indiscernible status (subjectively) of that same dog's feeling... operate like two bodies engaged in a semantic "sexual 69" whose engaged circuitry can tell us something more about the essentially reality of dog's feeling in human experience.

That is to say a policeman-of-hands may well insist upon the difference between left & right palms but this not directly related to studies of clapping.

I am not trying to indicate that suchness may be found anywhere, high or low (although that's true) but rather that certain structures (which duplicate the shape of the recognition of suchness) can draw us into a productive contemplation of Being at that-which-is-both-consciously-and-unconsciously-suchness-but-nothing-else.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted February 10th, 2012 by admin in response to vitgenshtein

This comment has been deleted by the author.

3 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

bad policy, good practice

Posted February 10th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hi Churlish,

We get a lot of work out of these little "if"s. A wonderful word/move which gives us two sides of an issue -- for everyone to take sides -- but ultimately highlights a very delicate balance point between them.

If we grant the idea that we are a community of obsessive perspective takers, convicted viewpoint shifters & chronic includers then this question of unearthing each other's points of departure becomes, as you say, among our essential skills and tasks in this place.

Truly this issue of the conflation (or substitution) of span for depth is a widespread and needs to be challenged. Elements of post-60s culture certainly exhibited a tendency to get carried away by attributing their own elevated sensibility to all peoples and even all objects. Great confusion resulted. And I glad you are vigilant on these concerns.

Although I may see my bronze statuette of Ganesha come alive as the instant of Living God... I do not therefore suppose that this item was romantically handcrafted by the high sages of the Himalayas. It was probably produced by some poor, even spiritless, street merchant (or, more likely, his starving children). Now I am in a beautiful position -- The True Ganesha is everywhere & anywhere. My specific situation is responsible for my specific interpretive perceptions. Yet, owing to its structure, I often see the True Ganesha in a meaningless lump of bronze. My heart starts to think that a very fine secret of the Elephant God is dusted over all these affairs. I begin to recommend that friends of Ganesh look at precisely this conjunction of elements.

To say, "Look for Ganesha in a poor lump of bronze" is bad policy but good practice.

Or, more aptly, God is not especially in the cathedrals & churches even though people experience Him there and assert Him at such sites. Once we are quite sure that He is not specially in churches -- what do make of our own occasional pausing and pondering when we catch sight of churches? In the commonality between where God must be (everywhere) and where he is structurally referenced (the old stone building)

Yet once I have established this clearly I may wonder a little more... What does God being in the rock and God not being in the rock have in common? What is it about me and God and rocks?

--Layman:

One of the really useful skills that blog participation builds is ... the ability to detect points of departure. What or where is the critical rent in shared assumptions.

In this case, I think I see it.

"But, if he was Me, his point would have been that ..."

This seems to me similarly applied to the Andy Samberg crew. BTW - I think it is really funny and a good parody. Well done.

But, I heard you saying, in essence, "If ... Andy Samberg were enlightened, then his point would have been .."

And my churlish response is .... he isn't enlightened, his intent is not to Manifest Suchness, and you are not Wittgenstein.

When we go around attributing depth to that which is merely span, we scramble the egges of life. I think the 60s generation confused an entire world with this kind of scrambled attribution.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

exactly, again.

Posted February 8th, 2012 by Layman Pascal in response to [Comment Deleted]

Both good examples. "E pluribus unum" and "Sam I am" are very much the kind of thing I had in mind. On the pathway from where-we-find-Being to where-being-ultimately-is these are nearby towns. Passing them tells us we are heading in the right direction. And wondering if they apply... that is the right direction itself.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Drowning in the Sea of Existence - (Weekly Harangue #118)

Made Me Think of Another..

[Comment Deleted]

Isness?

exactly

[Comment Deleted]

We are building insight -- not ascribing it.

Hi Layman,

exploitation vs. communion in intercultural sharing

I may have a limited view to the examples you use throughout this thread

The Trans-Ridiculous, Post-Profane, Perpetually Investigated Status of the...

back again

justified

[Comment Deleted]

expanding

zen & the art of critiquing zen-related titles

[Comment Deleted]

[Comment Deleted]

Pre-trans

[Comment Deleted]

I may not get your meaning, but I may.

[Comment Deleted]

vitgenshtein

[Comment Deleted]

bad policy, good practice

[Comment Deleted]

certainly

exactly, again.