The limits of "willing"

So, for building cars? Horses for courses! Long ago I was a "time and motion" man applying MSD (master standard data, which broke down each and every movement possible for the human body to make with pre-given times)

I used it for incentive rates. I never thought of applying it in the bedroom.

I observe consistent phenomena. I consistently see that I, personally, me, myself, cannot WILL wisdom and all the rest of it. It might just be me. I might try to waffle a bit more when I get to Costa's but in a rush now.

Thanks for your interest, and Leon. I appreciate it.

Academic theory unrelated to reality...? Really...?

As much as I respect your opinion on many things, Dooks, I think you've got it the wrong way around on this one.


Academic study - theory until proven as it may be - is very much related to reality. Molecular genetics is reality. The study of the molecular structure of DNA, its cellular activities - including replication - and its influence in determining the overall makeup of an organism is real. It can be studied, learned about and when theories are propounded, they can then be put to experimentation, evaluation and either proven or debunked.

That is real.



Dreaming about whether that dust mote drifting on the breeze has a soul suggests to me that people who wonder such things should lay off the acid for a while.

From my own perspective and understanding, my way of seeing things includes your own. Your way excludes mine.

Those who would seek beyond the current "world view" or "paradigm" (a view full of its presumptions of "knowledge" beyond the wit of all previous generations, "west" or "east" ) are often misunderstood or dismissed.

We must agree to disagree.

For Buddhists, "enlightenment" is the bottom line.

Not the application of knowledge to create ever more mind-blowing technologies!

Is that really what you think about me? How wide of the mark!

Just to add, I first said:-

I'm not familiar with all that. It appears to me as an academic theory unrelated to real life, reality.

I observe a world where more often than not the accumulation of knowledge does not in fact lead to wisdom - at least as I sought to define it.

That was my context. In line with the subject of this thread. I really do not mind meandering threads, they can go where they please.

But centering in on just one part (the judgement of something as simply "academic theory" ) without listening, hearing or perhaps even not considering what else was said......well. Meander all you like!

I generalise. If I intended to make it specific to you I'd mention you by name.

For sure, the things you ponder have a place in the world because it is important to "wonder". Everybody "wonders" about something. If we didn't wonder and dream and say "What if...?" there would be no drive to find anything out in the first place. So the scientific and spirituals do complement each other. Up to a point.

However, there comes a point where the roads divide and some decide to take the path of "Stop wondering and go find out". Others remain in their ponderings and while they may achieve some sort of spiritual nirvana, which to them equates to what they perceive to be enlightenment, the rest of us have been working on trying to find a cure for Coronavirus.

I too have my little day dreams from time to time. But they're little more than that. Wishing won't make the bad things in the world go away. Going to Mars, actually, IS rocket science, and if we want people to stop dying from cancer, we have to find a cure for cancer.

Communing with nature is a good thing if it teaches respect for it and leads to a desire to protect our habitat. Even walking in the fields, or taking time to smell the roses has a practical purpose if it helps to bring about a realisation that we need to protect the bee population, or we find out how to breed a more beautiful, sweeter smelling rose. Perhaps one that's immune to blackfly infestation.

Yes, I am aware that we are destroying our planet, but that is more of a political issue than a scientific one. Governments are the ones who fund programmes to build bigger bombs.

Einstien refused to join the German weapons programme in WWI. He would have nothing to do with the development of industrialised warfare, the production of chemical weapons or other forms of mass destruction. And yet, he formulated his E=MC2 equation which enabled the development of the atomic bomb. A wholly unintended outcome of a scientific discovery.

Who is to blame..? The scientist who formulated the equation? Or the men who applied it to develop horrific weapons..?

I cannot agree with your assertion that science is not "real". A scientific discovery is as enlightening in its own way as any other form of discovery. The scientist must accept the consequences of his actions. This is why we have ethics. Ethics are there to channel research and development down humanitarian channels... work to benefit humankind, not destroy it.

When ethics are cast aside, you'll usually find a politician behind it.

Discoveries are out there waiting to be discovered. The best we can do is try not to abuse them. But they WILL be discovered. They must be. Humankind can't not try.

It's all a branch of that wondering "What if......?"

I must be very poor at communicating.

I have made no such assertion.

Thus, basically, all else you have written both before and after that particular sentence is beside the point.

(As far as the subject of this thread is concerned)

(Just to repeat)

Edit:- Maybe the word "reality" should be in capitals, and emphasised. Except for that, I can be no clearer.

Maybe a good place to start if anyone is interested in the questions raised here, the book "Quantum Questions" edited by Ken Wilber. Subtitled "Mystical Writings of the World's Greatest Physicists". This includes contributions from Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington.(Where was David Bohm I wonder?) Ken Wilber himself offers a fine summary of how such "wonder" and "spiritual intuition" informs the scientific quest for knowledge.

I couldn't agree more, and I did make that point in my previous. The "wonder" aspect of it stimulates the drive to find out. In the title of the work you've quoted above, you'll not fail to notice the first word; "Mystical". I think that is a misnomer because it implies they were concerned exclusively with the spiritual*. In my opinion, their thoughts were concerned with how they might be able to unlock the secrets of things we don't know. Any "spiritual" aspect to their thinking would have had the scientific motive of examining those things in order to either accept or discard the notion of supernatural forces at work.

Having done that, they continued to examine those mysteries scientifically rather than philosophically. One can suggest that is evidence that the notions were discarded. (refer back to my previous comment regarding those who wonder reaching a place where the road divides into two paths: The spiritual and the scientific.)

The difference here is that the form of wonder embraced by philosophers is to ask questions that only lead to more questions and never coming to any conclusions. A never ending cycle with no end product. Any insight or other benefit gained along the way is entirely coincidental. One might gain personal insight that enables that individual to lead a more satisfied life and that's a good thing: For him. It may even be shared with humanity and enable others to think in a more constructive way. All very useful. I'm not knocking that. But as I said before: It won't produce a vaccine for Coronavirus.

We all have the capacity to "Wonder". Consider this maxim: "If you don't look up at the sky, you'll never reach the stars."





* Mystical defined as: a) relating to mystics or religious mysticism.

b) inspiring a sense of spiritual mystery, awe, and fascination.

Hi, good morning. You seemed to have reached your own conclusion. Two paths. Pondering v doing. Pointless wondering v finding vaccines or whatever.

As I see it, such a division exists only in your own mind. An ideal scientific process is extracted from the world around us and is then presented as "the way to practical progress", leaving the ponderers in their dusty garrets.

No, I do not like "conclusions". They do stop personal progress toward understanding.

I am very much "both/and" rather than "either/or"....(I could say I am a non-dualist but that seems to result in accusations of mumbo jumbo..... )

The REAL world is rather messy. It does not respect our conclusions. In the long ago I read the book "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler. Quite mind-blowing at the time and it has given me a lifetimes interest in Astronomy and its history, of the continuing unfolding of humankind's understanding of the universe around us. "Sleepwalkers" simply because such understanding did not evolve from a science laboratory where eager beavers applied a scientific methodology according to a ready to hand flow chart, but evolved more haphazardly. Kepler's Three Laws for instance were a by-product of his search for the Music of the Spheres, and even Newton was a bit of a nutter at times (if not all the time)

Anyway, not to worry. The sun is shining.

Well, pondering further.....

As I've already said, I see no reason to contrast "doing" with "pondering" as if a choice must needs be made. Those who actually keep the world turning - inventing, developing technology, finding cures or whatever - can also ponder. They do not even have to come to any particular conclusions! Some may prefer them, obviously. Fixed points. They offer a safety of sorts.



“Get out of the armchair and into the lab”, the approach of the neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland in seeking to explain consciousness! Sooner - or later - a "conclusion" will reveal itself. Some would hope so. Anyway, I would always prefer the armchair, but it does not necessarily exclude the lab.

As I see it, Reality itself has no "conclusion". It is infinite potential. Empty of "conclusions" Reality can continue to unfold, ever new. Buddhism speaks of "sunyata" - "emptiness". When I speak of this it is "mumbo jumbo", while Buddhism is simply accused of nihilism. But as I see it (or perhaps, do not see it) Reality, being "empty" is thus able to be all things - potentially. Or as is said in Mahayana Buddhism, "emptiness is form, form is emptiness"; or in a more soteriological context, "nirvana IS samsara". Thus THIS world, the only home we have ever known, is not betrayed for some imagined "other". We can be at home, here, now. The journey is home. Home is the journey; and what will be will be.

All academic mumbo jumbo? Not for me. I have found my own path life-giving. A while ago I asked on a Buddhist Forum:- "In what way does suffering end?" A suitable question, given that the Buddha declared many times: - "I teach this and this alone, suffering and the end of suffering." One guy thought he had cut the thread short with just one blow by quoting some text that sought to describe nirvana and its peace. Me, I was not satisfied. The question remained. Human suffering, including my own, continued to burden me. Every newscast revealed/reveals its depth.

The "answer" I have found is that the loss of loved ones remains, grief remains, pain remains, even that which we call evil; in fact, nothing changes. But we do not have to "suffer". This is not to become unfeeling and callous. It is more to be here for others.

There is an old zen story, of a great master who began each day with a walk through the village. One day he passed a house and heard from inside the wailing of a family who had lost a loved one. The master stepped inside and began to weep with them. One of his students came by, heard the master, went in and said to him:- "Master, you of all people I would have thought would be beyond all this". The master replied:- "It is this that puts me beyond it."

Obviously, potentially, it is not just tears we share. Who knows just what the future holds?

Well, to be honest I have had enough for the moment. For a variety of reasons.