GoldenRule(Love) > RWG

Other Formulae:

f(acting,doing) < F(Process) < f(being) < F(Being)
History = Symbol (cf p.2433)
Zen is the unsymbolization of the world (quote of R.H. Blyth in PR's Zen Body Being p.26); otherwise said: Zen = ¬Symbol but that would be rather un-Zen .

Comments

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-11-14 08:45:13 12794

M 2009-11-14 06:46:17 12794

seth 2009-11-13 11:44:56 12794

Too subtle for me, i still don't get the connections.

I created some formula notation (or functional notation) slightly more abstract than just mathematics to remember some thoughts I had which seemed true at the time. It would be interesting for you to struggle with one of them to see if you could get the aha!s. Anyway I will translate the title:

If you think of the Golden Rule as a formula for creating behavior which we are all familiar with if translated in the most positive way plugging in the word Love: "Love one another as you want to be Loved" then that is greater than the Right Wrong Game which as we know is also a tit-4-tat formula & indeed the GoldenRule formula will dissolve the RWG game if applied thusly.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-11-16 08:46:44 12794

Well i'm a big fan of (doing) so i suspect that any f of doing would feel better (>) to me, than that same f of being. But then i really have no comprehension of what your conception of being actually is.

You'll never get to being with concepts. Being is like directly experiencing your ego or "I" - what that is & how it produces the doing of the moment (if any, there is always something going on there).
A poor fidelity analogy might be that being is the formula, the content of the moment is the input variables & the output is what you call doing. Continuing with the analogy process is like a pre-written script (programs & metaprograms of NLP) for a particular set of input variables (also called context). I did not put an equal sign in the formula because it just describes a presumed order or hierarchy. Being with a capital B is just the Cosmic Being &/or World/Being of the macrocosm.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-11-17 08:41:57 12794

Well i do think i understand your formulation better now. "f(being) < F(Being)" being kind of a God is great or a The whole is greater than the individual kind of judgment. But when you say "being is the formula, the content of the moment is the input variables & the output is what you call doing", it makes me want to write f(being) = doing, instead of what you wrote. IOW, when the being functions in a particular context it produces "doing" otherwise called behavior.

Like I said it was a low-fidelity analogy. It can be said that being exists without the doing. Focusing on the doing thingy is one level of observing. Focusing on the process gives you another level. Notice the obsession with the so-called peace process going on in the Middle East. That abstracts one level above what the parties to the disputes are actually doing!
Focusing on being gets out of the observer mode to the experience & consciousness mode when applied to self. The more you leave out concepts & pour in consciousness the closer to a direct experience shows up. You don't need concepts to have consciousness, but they always seem to be there!

Seth says

Hmmm ... well seems to me, based upon the way you're talking about this, that your "f" is what i would call "awarenessOf()". Which function to me must needs a subject and an object, the subject being aware of the object. I would write that: awarenessOf(subject,object). Does that mesh with your intentions here?

Then what you call "direct awareness of self" would be coded in my notion as "awarenessOf(self,self)" which might have been you "f(being)", but i wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. The domain of your function seems to me some kind of hierarchical judgment of value or preference; so that "f(being) >f(actions)" expresses your fondness for your awareness of your self over your awareness of your actions.

Me, i'm more into the Zen view described in Alan Watts's book "The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", a dog eared paperback copy of which is still in my bookcase today. That Zen view would, were i to dare the misuse of your notation, translate into: f(being) = f(Null).

Sorry, i guess we have made different life choices when it comes to this stuff.

Mark de LA says

I know I read & perhaps listened to some of Watts. I'm not sure how much Watts differes from my main living source for Zen - Cheng Hsin. He also linked nothing to the answer of the question "Who am I?". Nothing has so many strange sub-concepts in it. There is no formula or function for being (who you are) - you are it! The concepts & analogies are truly low fidelity & arguing from them is usually a cause for mirth. I used them for mnemonics - private at first & then I chose to share. The hierarchy is merely a sorting arrangement; not a value judgement on any particular f ; they are all priceless or worthless depending upon where you stand. Awareness is usually equivalent to consciousness - see 12893. Since you joined my consciousness on this item it seems somewhat confrontational & polarizing, but maybe not RWG. The Tai Shu commentary on hex#6 gives many different ways of looking at combat & even being. Might read it, line 3, (all of them) for fun.

Seth says

source: mr above
He also linked nothing to the answer of the question "Who am I?".

Well he certainly did, though by what you said above, it would not be an answer that you might like. I hosted the whole book under the hyperlink ... it is very short ... if you skim it you will get his answer post haste.

Incidentally i am not being confrontational or playing RWG. There is no game here - just the attempt to comprehend what you say in relationship to my own consciousness and choices ... if you want somebody to sit in your pew, then start your own church. Don't be so sensitive ... dialogue must needs be admit of other viewpoints!

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-11-18 14:09:33 12794

source: mr above
He also linked nothing to the answer of the question "Who am I?".

The he linked nothing ..... refers to Peter Ralston; Peter got I am nothing. LL also gets I am nothing. I have no church. I have no pew. I don't care if you see things from my point of view or not (your loss or not). Your tone seem increasingly polarizing. I don't think you get being. There was some rwg in your stuff, but not as viral as that which shows up when we talk politics.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-12-06 11:39:56 12794

perhaps: Zen = ¬Symbol = doing = ¬ being

Except in extremis I suspect that you have some concept, symbol of what you are doing so the middle of your equation is wrong.
The final equation doing =¬ being may be true

Seth says

perhaps: Zen = ¬Symbol = doing = ¬ being

Mark de LA says

M 2009-12-06 11:49:08 12794

seth 2009-12-06 11:39:56 12794

perhaps: Zen = ¬Symbol = doing = ¬ being

Except in extremis I suspect that you have some concept, symbol of what you are doing so the middle of your equation is wrong.
The final equation doing =¬ being may be true

In extremis, OTOH, you have either the symbols of fight or flight; run from the wolf or feed it a cookie. Symbols still prevail.

Seth says

M 2009-12-08 09:42:25 12794

M 2009-12-06 11:49:08 12794

seth 2009-12-06 11:39:56 12794

perhaps: Zen = ¬Symbol = doing = ¬ being

Except in extremis I suspect that you have some concept, symbol of what you are doing so the middle of your equation is wrong.
The final equation doing =¬ being may be true

In extremis, OTOH, you have either the symbols of fight or flight; run from the wolf or feed it a cookie. Symbols still prevail.

For me it's all about "doing". Symbols come either before or after the events of doing. They are mental processes, outside of the Now Of Doing ... err the Zen Of Doing. For me to grok that "Symbols still prevail" would be to swallow a bitter pill. So for me it's still Zen = doing = ¬Symbol. I had better shut up about your "being" as what you refer to with that word doesn't seem to want to stick in my mind.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-12-08 09:58:40 12794

M 2009-12-08 09:42:25 12794

M 2009-12-06 11:49:08 12794

seth 2009-12-06 11:39:56 12794

perhaps: Zen = ¬Symbol = doing = ¬ being

Except in extremis I suspect that you have some concept, symbol of what you are doing so the middle of your equation is wrong.
The final equation doing =¬ being may be true

In extremis, OTOH, you have either the symbols of fight or flight; run from the wolf or feed it a cookie. Symbols still prevail.

You probably have doing & being collapsed.

GoldenRule(Love) > RWG

Tags

Comments

See Also