RECENT DISCUSSION POSTSThe most recent postings are reprinted below, with links to the pages they come from. Click here to go to page for the following item: From Merin, December 27, 2011. Time 23:18Hi, Michael, I see that the word is potentially misleading, but I'm using 'analogue' in the sense of, say, the method to calculate weights with old-fashioned balance scales, as opposed to reading the calibrated indicator needle on spring scales, and even further opposed to noting the digital read-out provided by electronic scales. Another example of the sense in which I'm using the word is the means by which a pianola (or player piano) reproduces recorded sound, as opposed to the means embodied by an electronic digital player. In principle, of course, it all comes down to physical cause and effect, but balance scales and pianolas 'translate' information with relatively little intermediate calibration or encoding. Electronic devices, on the other hand, involve more stages of intermediate translation. These tend to lose 'fidelity', but facilitate more efficient interception and manipulation of particular data. Regards, Merin Click here to go to page for the following item: From Michael Irwin, December 27, 2011. Time 21:49Merin: "analogue or 'real' reality" Since analogue is conceptual dealing as it doees with a comparison, how can it be equated with 'real' reality that by my understanding can not even be spoken of. Click here to go to page for the following item: Coherence. From stefan, December 27, 2011. Time 12:31"the latihan seems to gently shake out, clean up and gradually re-integrate my perceptual and conceptual processes at pretty deep levels, helping to establish what feels like a bit more coherence and equanimity toward life and relationships" Great article. I love this description of the latihan Click here to go to page for the following item: From Merin, December 21, 2011. Time 2:41Hi, Andrew, You provide wonderful comments. Below are my responses. >> But whether these imaginary worlds are "real reality" is an interesting question. How would we know "real reality" if we experience it? -- I think 'real reality' just cannot be known conceptually; but it can be known non-conceptually. >> . . . argues that there are similarities between modern art and thought and the schizophrenic mindset – making a conscious effort to distance oneself from one's surroundings, suspend normal assumptions and subject the world to a detached scrutiny. McGilchrist observes that this activity in the non-mentally ill is "normally confined to philosophers" and asserts that "the belief that this will result in a deeper apprehension of reality ignores the fact that the nature of the attention we bring to bear on anything alters what we find there. Adopting a stance normally found only in patients suffering from schizophrenia is not obviously a recipe for finding a higher truth." -- I agree with these observations, while noting that the final reference to "higher truth" represents an incredibly vague and essentially unreal (though perhaps far from useless) concept!! >> Whatever the argument that I can construct or imagine, does it ever bring me closer to "real reality?" -- Probably not, since argumentation is inevitably conceptual / symbolic, and therefore ipso facto 'once-removed' from analogue or 'real' reality. But hey, to that extent that we remain non-conceptual beings, we continue to live in real reality – so that's reassuring maybe. Moreover, the unreal realities that we inhabit, which are our constructed socio-linguistic worlds, are not necessarily all that terrible, are they?? They're never entirely divorced from real reality, after all (though extreme cases of schizophrenia can appear to be). I think it's useful to recognise that real-reality is simply not accessible conceptually, and useful to accept that, conceptually, it's possible to encounter ONLY somewhat unreal worlds. These are highly fluid, and apart from needing to be firmly grounded in the body and the senses, such realities also need to be socially grounded through constant contact and communication with our fellow human beings. They may nevertheless be extremely interesting, creative, enriching, expansive, personally rewarding and socially useful. >> When I say imaginary, this may discount the power involved. Perhaps a better word to use is possible. I think we humans are built to project ourselves into different possibilities. Why and how we evolved with this capacity is an interesting question set. -- Both' imaginary' and 'possible' seem reasonable to me, although the concept of possibility is not at all straightforward. As for why and how humanity acquired this capacity, well, it's part and parcel of the capacity to manipulate symbols in the manner of fully-fledged language, allowing individual organisms to share and jointly process arbitrary information. At face value, this represents a spectacularly powerful species survival mechanism. >> If what I am saying has some explanatory power, I think the value of the latihan may be that it helps us disengage from whatever set of possibilities that we are fixated on or have immersed ourselves in and so give space and allow other possibilities to rise into our awareness. -- I think that's a good way to see it, although, as my article suggests, I'd stress the value of conceptually-generated reality staying in better touch with its underlying pre-conceptual basis. >> And perhaps the latihan gives space and opportunity for my aging body to stretch and move and shake off the rust from my sedentary modern lifestyle, and so stimulate my aging brain to rise and follow whatever evolutionary dance it is fated to, like a flower opening in the sunshine. -- If I were given the authority to invent a new word that everyone would accept, I'd put forward a new version of 'we' (along with 'us' and 'our') which extended the meaning to automatically encompass all people and all subjectivity. It wouldn't refer to "you and me and (possibly) them". Instead it would refer to "you and me and everybody else, as well as everything". Click here to go to page for the following item: Out of touch with our true nature or reality.... From Andrew Hall, December 20, 2011. Time 21:33Merin, I have really enjoyed your article, and want to offer the following comments. You begin your argument for a speech-and-idea based rationality overlaid on a pre-linguistic rationality with the assertion that we "notoriously sense that we are somehow out of touch with our true nature or reality" and from there proceed to what I see as a series of speculations, beginning with "our prehistoric ancestors might have been more in touch with the real reality"... "half a million years ago, they engaged in highly complex social interactions, but their mode of rationality must have involved a non-symbolic scheme of assimilating and responding to environmental data.."etc. From my own experience, I am aware that hours in front of my computer screen can leave me fatigued and carrying around fragments of thoughts and unresolved questions at a level below my immediate consciousness. Similarly, I have some food sensitivities which I now understand can leave me feeling dull and thick-headed. I think all these may be So I guess the first point I would make in response to what you have prompted in me, is that awareness and whatever rationality we are capable of is very much centred in our bodies, with whatever limits and potential goes with that After that, thinking back over my life, I am aware of the predeliction or capacity to lose myself in an imaginary But whether these imaginary worlds are "real reality" is an interesting question. How would we know "real reality" Several years ago I came across Iain McGilchrist's book "The Master and the Emissary" which I've mentioned to you This quantum nature of consciousness, that the nature of the attention we bring to bear on something alters what we As I reflect on this, I think it a human chacteristic to construct imaginary worlds and to see these as very real. When I say imaginary, this may discount the power involved. Perhaps a better word to use is possible. I think we humans If what I am saying has some explanatory power, I think the value of the latihan may be that it helps us disengage from whatever set of possibilities that we are fixated on or have immersed ourselves in and so give space and allow other possibilities to rise into our awareness. And perhaps the latihan gives space and opportunity for my aging body to stretch and move and shake off the rust from my sedentary modern lifetsyle, and so stimulate my aging brain to rise and follow whatever evolutionary dance it is fated to, like a flower opening in the sunshine. Click here to go to page for the following item: Latihan, not Subud. From john hager, December 4, 2011. Time 12:34Husain Thank you for your inspiring article! There is so much in Subud to discourage me that this was a real refresher! I am with you all the way. Should you wish to start an alternative Subud I would be the first to join! Shall we just call it "Latihan"?! Click here to go to page for the following item: From Philip Quackenbush, December 1, 2011. Time 5:15Good idea, Merin, I, too, had forgotten about the article and my more recent reply to it, but I think that the ALL CAPS (something best used only to emphasize a point, not put a weak argument or lack of one on display in larger typeface) reply to it and the nature of many of the "helpers" groups to be "top dogs" that still consider themselves to be "Bapak's helpers" (remember that he pointed out that that referred to his inability to be everywhere at once to "open" members or "explain" the "latihan" to them [from their own experiences, preferably][and ONLY that, in my opinion]) instead of thinking for themselves or "receiving" with little or no influence from his stated opinions are likely to work against any substantial opportunity to bring up such a discussion to the general membership with useful results. As David Week noted in a post on this or some other website, only after the "Old Guard" leaves the planet is any substantial reform of Subud likely to take place. By substantial reform, I would say that it would be a major change in the structure of the organization that would put the members on an equal footing instead of the often actual assumed superiority of the "helpers" to carry out the business of the organization by "testing" {for example), something I regard as the likely resulting from the failing mental health of the founder or his attitude that the "latihan" could solve everything when he introduced the practice at a national congress I attended. Enjoy. Peace, Philip Click here to go to page for the following item: the Arcadian fantasy. From Merin Nielsen, December 1, 2011. Time 1:16Hi, Sahlan, I'd forgotten about this article from 2 years ago, which fleshes out the phenomenon more thoroughly - the tendency of people in spiritual movements like Subud to embrace delusions of grandeur. You've described it well, and I'm even surer that it would be useful for Subud members to confront this topic at some occasion like a national congress. Cheers, Merin Click here to go to page for the following item: From Philip Quackenbush, November 29, 2011. Time 0:16Hi, Merin, Did I mention that the founder also said that Subud should progress with the times, and that as people "progress" in the "latihan", they should no longer have to rely on his "advice" (stating in a very early "talk" or private conversation that became the "rumor de jour" for a while that the best thing that he could do would be to give no "talks", but then failing to follow his own "advice"). Those who continue to depend on his "advices" are apparently not capable of "receiving" very well, despite his continued admonitions to "stand on your own two feet" (he once said that testing was for people who didn't "receive" well; I've personally noted that "receiving" improves with "practice" and the assumption that the instantaneous answer from the "collective unconscious" or "divine mind" as the "channel" becomes "broader" is "correct", which, again, is what he said in so many words.). Granted that I'm guilty of selective memory, since that seems to be the case with most, if not all, people's neurology, if people are going to rely on the founder's advice, then they should take a close look at his often contradictory "advices", which often were predicated on a specific time or situation, and could more fruitfully be ignored now. Maybe that would give them the impetus to think and act for themselves more, rather than relying on "leaders" to think and act for them. Enjoy. Peace, Philip Click here to go to page for the following item: From Merin Nielsen, November 28, 2011. Time 23:46Hi, Philip, As you say, exploring diverse models of spirituality and/or the latihan's nature is perfectly reasonable. It's useful to recognise that practising the latihan and explaining it are separate things. In particular, Subud members should understand that paying any attention to Bapak's talks is a completely optional, personal 'extra'. Regards, Merin Click here to go to page for the following item: From Philip Quackenbush, November 28, 2011. Time 11:58Hi, Merin, Interesting your positive view of dissociation, which had never occurred to me, but on reflection, has been an ongoing "function" of my "laithan" for years, though remaining below the surface of my awareness. In ongoing discussions at a non-duality discussion group that I attend on Thursdays in actual preference to Thursday "latihans" (horrors! could it actually be "superior" to the "latihan"? I remember early on in my downward slide into the big 5-0 of bopping away at "latihan" asking "God" to direct me something better than the "latihan", if it existed; well, maybe not "better", as it turns out, but perhaps of equivalent value to me in one way or another), I often remark that it isn't possible to see yourself, because, as Shakespeare pointed out long ago, "the eye sees not itself except by reflection", i.e., what's looking (the self, or Self, if you prefer) can only see what it is not, unless it becomes One with Everything That Is, in which case, the "self" no longer exists (it never did anyway, being a "creation" of the imagination of "God"), but it's fun to imagine that it does. A bit of "scientific" philosophy, as seen from the "self's" perspective. Enjoy. Peace, Philip Click here to go to page for the following item: From Sahlan Diver, November 28, 2011. Time 11:43Philip, You suggest a hits counter attached to the Subud Vision web site. We have had one for the articles since its inception. Unfortunately, owing to a software problem when the web site was redesigned about three years ago, we lost the original count, so we have to estimate on the basis of the current count plus the old one - there have been approximately 30,000 article accesses. We have a subscriber list of 250, but not all regular readers will be subscribers, so we estimate about 500 regular readers. 30,000 hits could be attributed to 500 readers each reading half of the 137 articles. Of course, there will be a statistical spread and occasional readers will account for the numbers also. When you consider that the site can appeal to fluent English speakers only, 500 is quite a high proportion of the membership and quite a lot of readings. We do also hear every so often from people who say the web site has saved their sanity in Subud, but, as you suggest in your comments, the open expresssion of alternative views is not encouraged, so maybe some people don't like to own up to reading and liking the articles, Sahlan Click here to go to page for the following item: |
|
