4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2022
    1. there's a crucial distinction between what barney called three and four that's what uh captured me so 01:08:55 if you take the mind as fundamental as existing the only existing thing where where the the movie of the world is reflected into i am not happy 01:09:08 my my culture uh rejects then as a useless point of view to do science that's what but there is an alternative much more interesting and i find much more 01:09:21 deep in which which i read in a garage you know which is what uh barry seems to be is calling the fourth alternative in which the mind is not the fundamental thing in which everything is it's 01:09:32 reflected it's just one part of this uh uh uh interdependence now namely it's not the things that not intrinsic existence but mind has intrinsic existence that's not the 01:09:45 the the there's a more interesting answer namely that mind itself has no intrinsic uh uh existence uh and so it's just uh uh 01:09:57 it has an existence but is is it of course it's an existence my mind exists and i exist but uh and and and and if i think in terms of groups to say i mean all sentience being or all 01:10:10 human beings whatever um together uh which is an ideal also some some some some western philosophy that you know um it's collectively that through language and 01:10:22 that would create a vision of the world but i want to think of this as one aspect of the ensemble of things which is existence where uh uh nothing of that has um 01:10:36 uh has intrinsic existence so i want to think about my mind it's my brain my sensation my all my my my love people loving me the the image that people have of me my instead of the set 01:10:48 of processes uh uh which part of the world and it seems to me that the belgian allows me to think at me as part of the world at the same sense of the same ground as the world being 01:11:01 reflected in my consciousness without having to choose one of the two perspective to be the true one the intrinsic existence um 01:11:12 all all perspectives are uh uh empty they're all good but they are um they are not the the one on which the rest is ground they 01:11:24 each of one i can understand dependently on something else so marios you read a a verse or two from the third chapter of nagarjuna and uh let me comment on that

      Carlo points out the view he now holds, influenced by Nagarjuna's philosophy, that the mind exists, but does not intrinsically exist.

      So he argues on one (conventional) level, his mind and all other minds exist.

      Agreeing with Barry's fourth suggested alternative. The mind is not the fundamental thing, but is just ONE PART of this interdependency. Each view, whether of any human or even non-human is empty but conventional exists in interdependence of many causes and conditions.

      From Stop Reset Go perspective and the Indyweb, a web3 technology that can embody each indivdiual's perspectival knowing through the establishment of their the individuals unique and privately owned data repository can enhance the discovery of the process of emptiness. How? By theoretically having all one's (digital) interactions of the world, one can begin to see in granular detail how one learns about the world and begin to sense the flow of the mind. Through repeated use of the Indyweb and witnessing how one forms new ideas or reforms old ones, the indyvidual becomes increasingly aware of oneself as a process, not a thing. Furthermore, one begins to see self knowledge as hopelessly entangled with cultural and social learning. One begins to sense the 4Ps of propositional, perspectival, participatory and procedural learning, also entangled with each other and with individual/social learning.

      https://docdrop.org/video/Gyx5tyFttfA/#annotations:vkOUgv8rEeypE39kg2ckCw https://hyp.is/go?

      Quick John Varvaeke interview on 4P: url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FERdJDVdbkcY%2F&group=world

      One especially begins to sense perspectival knowing and situatedness and that causes and conditions unique to one's own worldview constructs one's relative reality.

    1. it's a how we know it in some way so it's different forms of how yes it's not based on the content of it so there's different ways you can do taxonomies and people often want to monkey with the taxonomy they said no no like you can make a 00:00:50 taxonomy however you want like if you make the taxonomy on the basis of content you're going to have like you're going to have like you know knowledge about australia knowledge about the solar system and right right now that you're right this is much more about the 00:01:03 manner and the mechanisms of knowing than it is about the content

      The 4 P's is concerned with the "how" of knowing rather than content of knowledge.

    1. Dogen can be very difficult to read or understand. That’s why we often need a commentary or teacher to introduce his way of writing and the underlying teaching. I often say he’s a thirteenth century cubist. Just like Picasso or in the writing world, Gertrude Stein, he tries to show all sides of the story in one paragraph or even one sentence. That is why he repeats himself and contradicts himself all in the same paragraph. If you are looking for the “right” understanding, you become confused and lost in his prism of various interpretations or views. Dogen’s “right” understanding is that there is none.   No one point of view is “right”. According to conditions, any view can be the right view in the right circumstance. Dogen really wants to take away our solid idea of a fixed ground of reality. It is not form or emptiness. It is not both or neither. There is no one right, fixed view. That is our “clinging”.

      Dogen contradicts himself because he tries to show "all sides of the story". His teaching is a "pointing out" instruction that ANY viewpoint is simply that, perspectival knowing.

      An important question then, is this, if Dogen (and Nagarjuna) are claiming that there is no objective reality in our constructed world of concepts and language, is science being denied? Is fake news ok? Is this a position that basically accepts post modernism? No, I would say no to all of these. It's pointing out the LIMITATIONS of concepts and language. They are incomplete and always leave with a sense of wanting more. And since Post Modernism is also one point of view, it is also thrown out by Dogen and Nagarjuna. Remember, ALL points of views are points of view. Fake news is also a point of view so those who practice it can also not justify it.

      What Dogen and Nagarjuna are saying is that as soon as one enters the world of concepts and language, any concept and anything side is inherently one sided. It is inherently perspectival and situated in an inherently incomplete conceptual space.

      As Tibetan doctor/monk Barry Kerzin points out in this conversation with physicist Carlo Rovelli, there is a critical difference between "existence" and "intrinsic existence". The first is not being denied by Nagarjuna, but the second, intrinsic existence, the existence of concepts and the words that represent them, is. If these two are confused, it can lead straight to nihilism.


      This also aligns with John Vervaeke's perspectival and propositional knowing in his 4 P ways of knowing about reality: Propositional, Perspectival, Participatory and Procedural. A good explanation of Vervaeke's 4Ps is here: https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FGyx5tyFttfA%2F&group=world

  2. Nov 2019
    1. a promising technology for decades that's never truly caught on. That's constantly changing with the current wave of VR products,

      PC magazine is a online compuer magazine, based on popular topics ranging form hackers to smartphones.

      Rating: 9/10