psychologists / spiritual teachers

Couldn't you argue the same on the other end, that many think measuring the mind by scientific means is art?

Why is an art installation art, yet a skyscraper not art?

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:15 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Couldn't you argue the same on the other end, that many think measuring the mind by scientific means is art?

 

Why is an art installation art, yet a skyscraper not art?

Me? I wouldn't argue for or against this. It's not very important if science or experience is More Art, is it? Arguing sort of misses the point that all the human organism can do is speculate about its existence and the existence of things around it, and if it comes up with some numbers that match up with the environment, then we have a monkey with some interesting skills, but that's relative to what? There's a lot of arrogance that comes with being human, the way there's arrogance in being the Best, the King. I think everything people do and don't do is pretty beautiful and artzy, and if there were any disagreement, that would be good art too. But the question, spiritually, is "who is thinking these things?" It's not me. It's the star dust rocking out on concepts.

This may seem a little cliche but i recommend Seagal, mostly his early stuff before he started piling on the pounds.

Here, he asks what is youth? Who holds the gun and who dies? Why shoot a gun if you cant even comprehend your own finger etc

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:07 AM, happycase said:

 

 

 

I also don't think psychology is worth measuring scientifically. I think for the most part psychology is abused or wasted on theoretics. To me it's an art, a means of self-discovery. The human being is good fucking art.

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:29 AM, happycase said:

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:15 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Couldn't you argue the same on the other end, that many think measuring the mind by scientific means is art?

 

Why is an art installation art, yet a skyscraper not art?

 

Me? I wouldn't argue for or against this. It's not very important if science or experience is More Art, is it? Arguing sort of misses the point that all the human organism can do is speculate about its existence and the existence of things around it, and if it comes up with some numbers that match up with the environment, then we have a monkey with some interesting skills, but that's relative to what? There's a lot of arrogance that comes with being human, the way there's arrogance in being the Best, the King. I think everything people do and don't do is pretty beautiful and artzy, and if there were any disagreement, that would be good art too. But the question, spiritually, is "who is thinking these things?" It's not me. It's the star dust rocking out on concepts.

you almost had me until your last sentence.

isn't the star dust concept a concept?

plus im not arguing one is better than the other, im challenging your earlier assertion that psychology isn't "worth" measuring scientifically. how is that not any less of a valid concept for man to pursue?

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:47 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:07 AM, happycase said:

 

 

 

I also don't think psychology is worth measuring scientifically. I think for the most part psychology is abused or wasted on theoretics. To me it's an art, a means of self-discovery. The human being is good fucking art.

 

 

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:29 AM, happycase said:

  On 12/28/2010 at 4:15 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Couldn't you argue the same on the other end, that many think measuring the mind by scientific means is art?

 

Why is an art installation art, yet a skyscraper not art?

 

Me? I wouldn't argue for or against this. It's not very important if science or experience is More Art, is it? Arguing sort of misses the point that all the human organism can do is speculate about its existence and the existence of things around it, and if it comes up with some numbers that match up with the environment, then we have a monkey with some interesting skills, but that's relative to what? There's a lot of arrogance that comes with being human, the way there's arrogance in being the Best, the King. I think everything people do and don't do is pretty beautiful and artzy, and if there were any disagreement, that would be good art too. But the question, spiritually, is "who is thinking these things?" It's not me. It's the star dust rocking out on concepts.

 

 

you almost had me until your last sentence.

 

isn't the star dust concept a concept?

 

plus im not arguing one is better than the other, im challenging your earlier assertion that psychology isn't "worth" measuring scientifically. how is that not any less of a valid concept for man to pursue?

Ah, absolutely. I hadn't thought of that. The whole idea of there being an origin point evolving into what is here now is conceptual. I was very attached to that idea until recently.

People pursue a lot of stuff and usually feel right about what they're doing. I'm conceited and think my approach to psychology honors the richness of the human spirit more than the objectifying/scientific psychology. This is of course sort of silly and sets up an unnecessary conflict. Both serve their functions and are respectable.

agreed.

Shunryu Suzuki, Adyashanti, Ram Dass...

Bruce Lee

R.A. Wilson

probably more later

raymond scott

buckminster fuller

threads like this remind me watmm is still a pretty dandy little oasis

  On 12/28/2010 at 11:07 AM, hahathhat said:

buckminster fuller

agreed

  On 12/28/2010 at 11:36 AM, lumpenprol said:

threads like this remind me watmm is still a pretty dandy little oasis

leonardo da vinci

happycase, I really enjoy your posts in this thread. Thanks for the tips re: Jung, Perls & Nisargadatta.

  On 12/28/2010 at 1:35 PM, Bread said:

  On 12/28/2010 at 11:07 AM, hahathhat said:

buckminster fuller

agreed

Where do you two think the best place is to start with his stuff? I've thumbed through a few of his books in the library and they seem to sway between appropriate for the layman and utterly beyond my ability to comprehend... i'd really like to read at least a few of his words though.

Anybody into Osho ?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)

Jeannie Zandi has a couple hour long interviews on google video and viddler. She's nice to look at, an incredible poet, and very direct, trying to snap you out of your trance on the spot, if not speaking elegantly about spiritual-egoic mechanics.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/ClearSightTV/videos/39/

The host, Richard, is a goofy character. His energy can turn you off immediately, but if you listen carefully he has some wicked insights into how the mind works.

Jung's biggest contribution to inner work was for me the process of active imagination. We have a capacity to imagine or hallucinate to ourselves what's going on in a situation, how we should respond to it, etc. Based on our discursive hallucinations we give off protective or seductive energy, retreat into a corner waiting for someone to take our hand and guarantee that we're safe, that we can give more of ourselves. etc. We do our human thing. But we're not really aware that we're doing this unless someone mirrors our intention back to us, rather than mirroring our condition back to us, by affirming, yes, you are very sexy now, or yes, I am afraid of you, or yes, you do need someone to pull you out of your hole. Mirroring the intention is basically revealing how our condition speaks to our conditioning. But we do this conditioned behaving discursively, it's chaotic, responds quickly and unmindfully which is essentially ego-logic. Thinking filtered through opinions, cultural and familial biases, assumptions about the people you're with, etc. Very cyclical, muddy, distorted, incomplete thinking. So Jung developed this capacity to tap into his unconscious dreaming mind's resources to do his thinking from there. You use this goal-oriented conscious mind to gently direct, but ultimately give up control to the imagination fully. You introduce a purifier into your stream of imagination and watch carefully to see what happens. Where are the resistances, what sort of characters come out in your sacred space? What do they do, say, how do they interact? Some people call these sub-personalities. Parts of us that operate but aren't seen clearly because they don't match our tidy, tiny, limited ego-image or ego-ideal. So Jung found this happy medium between indulging in his fantasies as art, or indulging in them as meaningful. There was a sense for him that you could just flow with it once you understood its language, acknoweledge it's beauty (he was a painter), and analyze its contents (he was a therapist).

Jungian techniques: http://ozpk.tripod.com/jung

Sub-personalities: http://ozpk.tripod.com/sub

More: spiritual/imaginative work: http://ozpk.tripod.com/IAM

More: http://www.plotinus.com/copies_copy.htm

More: http://www.plotinus.com/mysticism1.htm

Here's a talk Perls gave: http://www.gestalt.org/self.htm

Adyashanti is a good introduction out of spirituality and into Being, but he's a softy in my opinion. He has to be, it's his nature. Due to his softness I had to go through a lot of him to find some good treasure.

Tao te Ching: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

I've never read a version quite like this one. I love it. It's my homepage. Definitely has more of a esoteric Hindu-Vedanta feel to it.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

  On 12/28/2010 at 3:27 PM, dese manz hatin said:

  On 12/28/2010 at 11:36 AM, lumpenprol said:

threads like this remind me watmm is still a pretty dandy little oasis

you have to admit though, SR4 and Happycase making peace in a thread on psychology and spirituality is :sup:

  On 12/28/2010 at 9:29 PM, happycase said:

Tao te Ching: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

 

I've never read a version quite like this one. I love it. It's my homepage. Definitely has more of a esoteric Hindu-Vedanta feel to it.

my favorite. if I had to sacrifice every other book except one, it would be the Mitchell translation of the Tao te Ching.

What is the difference between spirituality and philosophy?

Spirituality maybe is a combination between psychology and philosophy?

It doesn't matter actually. At all.

thanks for all these links ,,,,,,man

Thomas Paine

i hate my life and i want to die.