Earlier this morning, I reported that Ram Bomjon, the teenager from Nepal who is supposed to have proved his merit as a new Buddha or great enlightened teacher by sitting under a pipal tree for ten months straight without moving, eating, or drinking has been found by his followers, after he suddenly went missing earlier earlier this month. (Why didn’t Mary Grace on CNN do some special outraged coverage of this missing teenager?)
Well, here’s a video of Ram Bomjon’s appearance to his followers. Isn’t it interesting how, while “searching” for Ram Bomjon out in the woods, his followers just happened to be carrying a video camera? I know that every time I go out searching for a missing teenager, I make sure to bring at least two camcorders along [sarcasm, sarcasm].
It seems that Ram Bomjon appeared only to announce to his followers to say that he would be gone for the next six years, in a secret place one could reach by five days and five nights of walking. Like all good hoaxsters, Ram Bomjon and his inner circle of followers know better than to let their illusion appear long enough to be closely examined. Note also in this video the clever use of Ram Bomjon’s long hair – as it was used during almost the entire time Ram Bomjon was purported to be meditating under the tree. Can you really tell who that boy is? Do we know for sure it’s the same Ram Bomjon all the time, or could it be more than one boy, switching the role back and forth? Only the wig knows.
Ram Bomjon was, though, good enough to tell his followers that they should set up a new camp on the spot where he appeared to them, for pilgrims and worshippers to come to… and make donations… and buy souvenirs. The Buddha did that too, right?
Alan wrote:
“……….Mackers does not type things by accident. He is lucid. Scotty owes me ten cents.”
James replies:
You can try to reformulate wording on what Scotty’s bet was all you want. If Mackers writes here that
he intended to write the word “meditator” instead of the mistaken spelling of “mediator”….then that shows
a simple typo error, and Scotty probably owes you nothing. Scotty suggested Mackers made a rare and innocent typing mistake of “mediator” instead of “meditator.” You are wrongly changing Scotty’s comment to make it sound like he said that all or most of Macker’s writings are “accidents.”
I used to think you were showing intellectual honesty here. Now I’m not so sure. Humor us some more.
“And by the way, who IS Scotty?”
Once again, I want to reiterate, regardless of the similarity in mames, Scotty is not moi.
Scott wrote:
“…………Once again, I want to reiterate, regardless of the similarity in mames, Scotty is not moi.
James comments:
What does that word “mames” mean??? I conclude that Scott communications here are accidents.
You have found me out.
Scott, per se, does not exist. I am actually a conglomorate of a near infinite collection of monkeys banging away randomly on a near infinite number of typewriters.
Scotty, on the other hand, is actually a half dozen aardvarks banging away on a half dozen Atari 3200′s.
And james is really a litter of hibernating hedgehog cubs who keep knocking up against the dictionary paste key as they trundle about the cave in their cold-induced torpor.
Scott, I follow you so far. I agree that when we talk about esoteric knowledge, feeling, and experience, we do not think objectively. We think subjectively. This is not a bad thing. After all, we are not aardvarks or machines. We want to know the meaning of life, what happens after death, celebrate the major changes in our lives with some appropriate ritual, and maybe know something like how to become more like Buddha. None of these is part of the tradition of western criticism, at least that I know of.
If there is no common ground for discussion of subjective things like mental states (like maybe the experience of meditation), then we need to find one.
Can we be so sure we can’t know if one person’s experience of green is the same as another’s? I think we all experience green in about the same way, except for color-blind people, but of course this would be hard to prove.
We can point to the color and use a word for it. Someone else will point to the same color and use the same word. But of course there are people who are green-blind. They lack the ‘cones’ in the back of the retina that transmit ‘green’ information to the brain. But that does not mean they can’t see something they call green. How do you think they drive? Green traffic lights are not pure green but have some blue in them. Color blind individuals can differentiate this from a red or yellow light.
What about hunger, thirst, cold, happiness, anger, love, grief,…I would be willing to say we also experience these in similar ways and have words that mean about the same thing to many people.
So now we come to meditation and the idea of becoming a Buddha. I never meditated, or was interested in the idea. But Mackers is very interested. Maybe he can understand meditation and the reason for it in the same way someone else understands green. Maybe I am ‘meditation-blind’ and cannot experience this myself. But if we can find the way to discuss this, maybe I can learn to experience meditation myself, or at least find something similar so I can understand it the same way color-blind person sees the blue/green traffic light and drives in the green world.
Alan wrote:
“…………..They lack the ‘cones’ in the back of the retina that transmit ‘green’ information to the brain. But that does not mean they can’t see something they call green. How do you think they drive? Green traffic lights are not pure green but have some blue in them. Color blind individuals can differentiate this from a red or yellow light.
James replies:
It so happens that all males in my family are “red/green color blind.” That includes me.
Usually, I look for changes in “intensity” of the three lights in a traffic signal, and
also their position. I can’t reliably discern “red/green/yellow” light per se. I add
to this collateral sensory data like whether traffic around me seems to be slowing down collectively for
a potential “red light.” If I’m uncertain, I sometimes slow down enough to safely stop at a light if
that is what everyone else does, but keep an ear open to see if other drivers look agitated that
I am slowing down – which fact points to a possible green light.
My uncle, who was very handsome, was though of as a classy dresser. But he had a clothier but
numbers on his garments and dressed by the number.
Color blindness affects social life too, as one sees less differentiation by skin color.
Alan wrote:
“……I agree that when we talk about esoteric knowledge, feeling, and experience, we do not think objectively. We think subjectively. This is not a bad thing. After all, we are not aardvarks or machines. We want to know the meaning of life, what happens after death, celebrate the major changes in our lives with some appropriate ritual, and maybe know something like how to become more like Buddha. None of these is part of the tradition of western criticism, at least that I know of.
If there is no common ground for discussion of subjective things like mental states (like maybe the experience of meditation), then we need to find one………
James replies:
Wow, an authentic, thoughtful, open-minded, constructive posting. What a pleasant surprise.
I would suggest that we do not always think subjectively when we talk about esoteric knowledge,
For example, if two meditators discuss their subjective experiences during meditation…after the fact..
their disucssion might typically be subjective and relative to their experience.
But, those meditators may also be graduate students in the hard sciences, and doing a thesis on
the physiological correlates of meditation, for example changes in alpha waves or theta waves.
“Talking about”…… could go either way. Another objective form of discussion “about” meditaton could involve instructions for initiating a meditation session. “do x, then y, then z.” However, a discussion of
what one feels or seems to perceive visually or otherwise in the course of a meditation session would probably be subjective.
It is a fairly common shared understanding among meditators that absent a prior set of personal experiences
during meditation – there is no shared realm of knowledge that can serve as a common denominator for meaningful discussion of some experiences. Not all things lend themselves to meaningful verbalization, let alone
objective communication.
I have practical experience personally with meditation over a period of many years. So I base my comments on my personal experience.
Thanks Alan and James for your replies.
The way that you have responded demonstrates exactly what I was talking about in post 251, when I tried to emphasize what is wrong with the Mackers approach.
I have tried to formulate my position and my arguments in such away as there is something that could count as a counter-argument (though James doesn’t always agree that I do). You have both replied constructively to the arguments presented indicating success in my approach.
BTW, I think you’re wrong, but I have 6 hours of lecturing ahead of me (almost back to back), so a reply will have to wait.
Tuedays bite big time.
Alan posted#236
very intelligent question
Anyway thank you for summarizing my post#252 pls. take my compliments
Im humbly apreciate it.
Mackers says you never comprehend it is all about the experience of the meditator
Allan:(Q) What experience?
Mackers:(A)Esoteric experienced that not supposed to be revealed by the witness or by the doer of this experience it is very difficult to understand.
Allan:(Q)Mackers who has the experienced you or Bomjon?
Mackers:(A)Tek Bahadur Lama has the experience.
Allan:(Q)Is this experience important?
Mackers:(A)Yes it is very important Because it will lead to a bunch of skeptic reasons or it could be Mythical,or Hyphotetical imagination.
Allan:(Q)What is important?
Mackers:(A)What do you mean Important, you want me to answer the meaning of important or?
I don’t understand all of Macker’s post. This is a summary of what I understand:
Mackers says, The knowledge from the experience is secret. Tek Bahadur Lama says he saw a light came out of RB’s head. Because of the light some people think the Bomjon story is not true. Maybe the lama did not speak about a real light, but spoke in symbols.(?)
“What is important?” My last question is about values. For example, in my religion, we say people go to heaven when they die. But heaven is not a big deal. It is important to make heaven on earth so everyone can have a good life now. Why do people watch Bomjon? What do they want? What do they hope Bomjon will do for their life?
“The knowlege from the experience is secret.” I think this is like the study of martial arts. People think the teacher knows something valuable. If it is valuable, the teacher needs money to live. At the lower level of karate, there is no secret. But the high level students pay much money for many years to learn the advanced techniques.
Bruce Lee wanted to learn advanced techniques from many types of Karate to make films, but he knew if he went to a famous school he would have to study and spend money for years and years to learn one small secret. So he paid a top student in the same class to teach him only the advanced techniques. In this way he learned the karate system very quickly without playing the games.
257; Alan: “If there is no common ground for discussion of subjective things like mental states (like maybe the experience of meditation), then we need to find one.”
–I have spent considerable mental effort on this question, undergrad thesis, and one of my MA theses. “We need to find one” is a noble sentiment, but a little trickier than one might think.
“we also experience [multiple things] in similar ways and have words that mean about the same thing to many people.”
“but of course this would be hard to prove.”
–Well this is the question isn’t it. It boils down to the irreducible subjectivity of conscious experience.
If we take the terminology and conceptual apparatus of one conceptual system, say chemistry, and try to translate it into the conceptual apparatus of another system,physics, can you have a smooth translation? Or are there some elements at one level irreducible to the other? When one makes the translation to a more basic level of reality (economics to psychology; neurophysiology to biochemistry; chem to physics) there will be some “left overs” than don’t translate smoothly.
When one tries to reduce the experience of “warmth” to “mean molecular motion” or “smell” to the physiology and chemistry of the olphactory epiyhelium, something is lost. What is lost? The “what is it like” to experience warmth, or smell, or runner’s high… that’s lost. The inner subjective experience.
I’m not, like some, denying these inner qualitative subjective mental states and events exist, all I’m arguing is that they can’t be reduced smoothly to neurophysiology.
Therefore one cannot reduce the language of esoterica into a language or conceptual scheme that can be conveyed without losing the esential element of the esoteric experience. Esoterica are, by definition, ineffible.
259; James: “I would suggest that we do not always think subjectively when we talk about esoteric knowledge,
For example, if two meditators discuss their subjective experiences during meditation…after the fact..
their disucssion might typically be subjective and relative to their experience.”
Again I go back to analogy of whether your green is the same as my green (sorry, not poking fun at your “disablity”).
Prior to about 10, the “green” question is pretty well meaningless. Why? Because I can point t a green thing and you can point at a green thing, and agree that we are both pointing at a green thing. Issue settled. But pointing at something external does not settle the issue at all of what the inner subjective experience is like.
In your example, you and I are both meditating, we now take that inner subjective innefible experience and translate it into our shared language. The shared language will seem objective and similar to one another, but is it? If the essential element of the meditation is necessarily lost in the reduction, then the similarity of our shared language system tells us nothing about the similiarity or disimilarity of our meditative experience.
“It is a fairly common shared understanding among meditators that absent a prior set of personal experiences
during meditation – there is no shared realm of knowledge that can serve as a common denominator for meaningful discussion of some experiences. Not all things lend themselves to meaningful verbalization, let alone
objective communication.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
And so I reiterate.
Mackers position (which he now assents to (post 261))amounts to an admission that there is no common ground for discussion. There is no way that A can convince B of his/her beliefs because of the impossibility of shared experience.
When one is claiming esoteric knowledge, it follows that he/she is essentialy removing himself/herself from the realm of objective discourse and negates the possibility of a common ground upon which he/she can criticize meaningfully.
So when Mackers accuses others of mocking and taking cheap shots, his discourse is necessarily meaningless to the neophyte.
What’s the deal with moderating comments?
I spent quite some time writing a response to Alan & James. For a while it was awaiting moderation, and then it disappeared.
Second time it’s happened.
Scott, thanks for the warning.
I have two comments “waiting moderation,” one of them a response to Mackers on this board. I just did a highlight/copy/paste-to a word file in case they disappear.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m freakin insanely busy. To spend 45 minutes on a post here is quite a serious time investment.
It’s not like I was posting porn links.
I should’ve done the same, Alan, but as the site is not censored, I thought the first time was simply an error or a glitch and didn’t think it would happen again.
I will try to post a smaller file. Here’s part one of the comment waiting moderation, a summary of Mackers comment.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
I don’t understand all of Macker’s post. This is a summary of what I understand:
Mackers says, The knowledge from the experience is secret. Tek Bahadur Lama says he saw a light came out of RB’s head. Because of the light some people think the Bomjon story is not true. Maybe the lama did not speak about a real light, but spoke in symbols.(?)
I have had several comments disappear; it usually happens in batches, the first time when they did the software upgrade. I now have a 28 word comment posted, but a 77 word comment waiting. How about I try to post 57 words to test the limitations of the system? That leaves us at least with limerick capability.
Here’s the summary of Macker’s post again.
Mackers says, The knowledge from the experience is secret. Tek Bahadur Lama says he saw a light came out of RB’s head. Because of the light some people think the Bomjon story is not true. Maybe the lama did not speak about a real light, but spoke in symbols.(?)
The esoteric Experienced is not supposed to be Revealed, That was pure MISTAKE blog in here Mr. Lama Break the Curse.
Alan says:
Why do people watch Bomjon? What do they want? What do they hope Bomjon will do for their life?
James replies:
The term people refers in this context to some tens of thousands (or more) of people that have cycled through Bomjon’s location over many months. The people are all varied in country of origin, religious background, educational level, purpose in coming, etc.
For example, I know Americans and Europeans who visited the Bomjon site, as well as citizens from Nepal and India, etc. Some of those Americans and Europeans came to visit out of curiosity since they were traveling in that part of the world, heard of an amazing tale, and wanted to see what they might see. I know one American who is a highly trained Buddhist monk, a resident of the Himalayas for more than a decade, who came to pay respects to someone he suspects is an advanced meditator. I believe many thousands of persons came to receive what is termed “darshan,” a sanskrit and urdu word……i.e. receive a divine blessing by seeing a divinely blessed person. Other persons came for various administrative reasons, including the police, security forces, the Nepalese army, and then there are the officials from local villages and multiple media outlets from various countries. With all this diversity, it would be difficult to offer a single reason or sentence to explain why people come to see Bomjon….what do they want.
Alan says:
“The knowledge from the experience is secret.†I think this is like the study of martial arts. People think the teacher knows something valuable. If it is valuable, the teacher needs money to live. At the lower level of karate, there is no secret. But the high level students pay much money for many years to learn the advanced techniques.
James replies:
First, I assume that Mackers has not met Bomjon or the Lama, and is thus offering pure speculation about what they’re doing, and whether it involves any particular secret.
Second, Granted that some secret knowledge is valuable, and that some valuable knowledge is sold for money. But that certainly doesn’t mean that all valuable knowledge is sold for money, or that Bomjon is using knowledge that is sold for money.
Third, in the field of meditation training, knowledge conveyed may be secret for reasons not contemplated here yet. For example, some meditation instruction is usually incremental so that only if and when a student has a particular subjective experience will another increment of knowledge be conveyed. Some students may never have certain experiences that would qualify them for additional increments of certain kinds. The yoga treatises from thousands of years ago speak in terms of the need not to feed students knowledge they are not equipped to use and comprehend. Still true today. Avoid confusion. Also, avoid risk to the welfare of the student. If certain meditation practices enable the student to gain unusual control over the autonomic nervous system, the knowledge must be used wisely. A teacher is unlikely to impart knowledge that is powerful to a student that is unwise. There’s more to it in the view of that culture than the money angle that is of interest in Alan’s paradigm. If students seem unwise they may never receive certain training.
Mackers wrote:
“….Maybe the lama did not speak about a real light, but spoke in symbols. ”
James replies:
Yes, the lama may have spoken “figuratively”, or literally, or he may simply have become
excited and had a hallucination. There are many reports of groups of people reporting that they
see a halo around the head of a holy person, or see Jesus, or etc. Sometimes the circumstances
suggest some kind of a group hallucination resulting from shared beliefs, expectations, and excitement. That is not to say that this particular lama did hallucinate. He may have really seen some light. Throughout history there are many anecdotal reports of lights near the heads of people who are religious or spiritual figures. I have never seen scientific explanations of such light. Personally I just suspend judgment and leave it as an open question to be observed further until better understood.
From the standpoint of meditation teachers, it is a common experience that eager students visualize or hear things that to them seem inspiring. Very often a meditation teacher will advise the students to disregard such weird phenomena. It is not encouraged, usually, and is often assumed to be the product of some excitement.
Scott wrote:
“……….Mackers position (which he now assents to (post 261))amounts to an admission that there is no common ground for discussion. There is no way that A can convince B of his/her beliefs because of the impossibility of shared experience.
When one is claiming esoteric knowledge, it follows that he/she is essentialy removing himself/herself from the realm of objective discourse and negates the possibility of a common ground upon which he/she can criticize meaningfully.
So when Mackers accuses others of mocking and taking cheap shots, his discourse is necessarily meaningless to the neophyte. …”
James replies:
It seems to me that Scott’s take is overly general. Mackers may have spoken in brief sentences to save time in expressing himself here. But I surmise that if he intentions were further expressed, he would agree that for meditators and meditation, portions of that experience is subjective, esoteric, and not easily communicated, whereas other aspects of it can be communicated. Some aspects would be difficult to get others to believe in, while other aspects would pose little difficulty. For example, a meditator may in his five year of similar seeming meditations suddenly have the unique experience of gaining control over the autonomic nervous system, yet find that hard to discuss – how he got there. At the same time, he may have been hooked up to a EEG machine that takes an objective reading of the physiological correlates of the meditation episode. Reduced heart rate, predominantly alpha or theta waves in the brain, suspension of breathing for a minute or three. We have here one span of time, one meditation episode, involving both inner experience hard to discuss and outer phenomena of the latter that one can discuss and demonstrate to others. One might persuade others that he altered his brain waves X way, suspended breathing for Y minutes, and had P change in galvanic skin response. None of this may go further to convince others of the generality that for a few moments the meditator acquired brief control over the autonomic nervous system, which is not normally open to conscious control. That is a common thing for advanced yogis. Thus, this meditation episode has not in toto removed one from objective discourse, but perhaps not ALL aspects can be conveyed objectively and convincingly. How does one describe the feeling and process of “thinking from the brain stem” so as to bring breathing down to zero or close? That is something rarely seen in books, but practiced by some meditators. Absent certain prior subjective experiences in consciousness, there’s no meaningful frame of reference to begin to discuss or conceive of that, even if it can be done and effected in practice.
Alan and Scott say such things as:
“……………….I spent quite some time writing a response to Alan & James. For a while it was awaiting moderation, and then it disappeared.
Second time it’s happened.”
James reples:
I’ve seen my comments moderated quite often.
Scott wrote in No. 263:
“…………..The “what is it like†to experience warmth, or smell, or runner’s high… that’s lost. The inner subjective experience.
I’m not, like some, denying these inner qualitative subjective mental states and events exist, all I’m arguing is that they can’t be reduced smoothly to neurophysiology.
Therefore one cannot reduce the language of esoterica into a language or conceptual scheme that can be conveyed without losing the esential element of the esoteric experience. Esoterica are, by definition, ineffible.”
…..WAIT….WAIT …. I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE ABOUT TO SAY………
James replies:
There is a lot of discussion here about the importance of language and verbal communication to
sharing of knowledge. An implication seems to be that ineffable knowledge cannot be communicated.
It is said my some meditation and yoga teachers that certain elements of training are conveyed
directly, mind to mind between teacher and student, to the extent the student has a receptive
capacity. This in the manner usually termed mental telepathy. Sometimes people suspect they may experince this is short moments, and we sometimes hear them say such as “Wait…… I know what you’re about to say…”
Those who feel they can communicate in this manner don’t usually lose their sense of that just
because other people don’t experience it or believe in it.
Mental telepathy has been scientifically studied, as Wikipedia briefly summarizes.
The studies are sometimes positive sometimes not, and on a meta-study basis appear
somewhat inconclusive.
Also, where he wrote: “one cannot reduce the language of esoterica into a language or conceptual scheme “,
I might instead phrase it as “…… one cannot reduce the EXPERIENCE of esoterica into a language
or conceptual scheme………..etc. “
There is such as thing in psychological and other science literature of “pre-verbal” thinking / communication.
In science literature, pre-verbal thinking and communication is often associated with certain circumstances such as babies, mathematics, and etc.
When one talks about an inabililty to reduce experience of esoterica into a language or conceptual scheme,
I don’t think that needs to imply that no communication or knowledge is in play. Pre-verbal is one place to “go” with that line of discussion.
James,
They don’t get moderated in an active sense. We have automatic spam filters to catch hundreds of automatic advertisements that get posted here each day. Some posts get caught in them, and we have to fish them out.
Thanks for fishing mine out Jim.
This is very hard to explain but im trying to do my best in my own view that this Esoteric experienced that happen to Tek B.Lama And R.B. are real experiences of both Mystic Meditator and the Followers of Bhudist principles, Im talkin about R.B.here as Mystic Meditator why? am i say Mystic, because He is the controler of the mind and sences, R.B. reached the realm of super conciuos mind. The light emanates from Ram Bahadur Bomjon fore head was true experiences, that was witness by Tek B.Lama, It must be kept secret.other wise the pure experience will be contaminated. But the thing is MR.Lama reaveal out of his exitement he shared it, he is not aware of this esoteric experienced could be turned in to impurities, The news spread all over the gloved. I dont blame those people who has Negative Comments who did not understand this esoteric experienced, That turned in to a solid CURSE.
penalty is over out of the cage guys, On Behalf of Jim & jclifford, Thank you very much for being part of this wonderful intelectual Blog discusion.
Mackers
I dont know how to explain this Esoteric experience but i will try my best to express it, in my own view. The Esoteric experiences between the Followers of bhudist principles which is Tek Bahadur Lama, and the Mystic meditator Ram Bahadur Bomjon are real experienced (Mystic meditator is the controler of Mind and Sences)
Tek.B.Lama was witness the phenomena of esoteric pure light emanates from Ram Bomjon forehead which is must to be keep it secret, other wise it could be turned in to impurities, But the thing is T.B.Lama reaveal and shared this experienced which is not supposed to be. Out of his own exitement he tell the people around him. The isue was spread like a wild fire all over the globe. Some sort of people of the globe take this isue as Myth,or Hyphotetical imagination. sprouting many skeptic doubt & negative ideas like elaborated hoax fake etc. I dont blame those people to have their own negative comments to Critized this isue and condemed Ram Bahdur Bomjon and turned in to a solid CURSE.
“Mackers”
“Out of the cage guys penalty is over”. On Behalf of JIM & JCLIFFORD Thank you very much for being part of this Wonderfull Intelectual Blog Discussion.
Im out of here
MACKERS ?
A while back one of the guests on Charlie Rose made a comment about overlaying worldviews. If someone could completely understand Marxism as a system he said, then completely understand capitalism, then go on to understand 20 other systems, how much closer would they be to completely understanding how complex systems actually work, and in trying to affect that complex system for some purpose, say, to end world poverty.
With that in mind, last week I picked up three used books to amuse myself. Charles Bates’ “Pigs Eat Wolves: Going into Partnership with Your Dark Side,†examines the fairy tale of the three little pigs with a Jungian twist. The wolf is the symbol culturally unacceptable behaviour: fear, anger, revenge, greed, sexuality, and violence. The most interesting sentence is near the end, when the wolf goes down the chimney, falls into the pig’s soup cauldron, and is assimilated by the pig in a sort of religious eating ritual. The Pig does what others have found virtually impossible; he deliberately stands in the face of the gods. “Many have sought to avoid it, looking to religion to mediate on their behalf and render the divine harmless.â€
Diane Stein’s “Pendulums and the Light†promises to show you how to use pendulums in a way similar to dousing. By establishing communication with a spirit guide or Being of the Highest Light and using the pendulum to ask ‘yes’ and ‘no’ questions you can diagnose car problems, find lost objects, and determine whether a particular job is right for you. The being will even make shopping decisions for you at the supermarket if you take your pendulum with you and hold it over various items you consider purchasing. In fact, the being that communicates with the author seems to be a bit of a shopaholic, and gets her to buy stuff like pre-cooked lobsters. I haven’t finished this book yet, so I don’t know if I can communicate with a Light Being once I have assimilated my Dark Side from the previous book—or how to get the Dark Side to inoculate me from the intrusiveness of these spirit creatures.
Edward de Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats†rips apart the Western habit of argument, critical thinking, and dialectic, saying it was refined and developed by medieval monks as a means of proving heretics to be wrong. “Usually, the only people who are very satisfied with their thinking skill are those poor thinkers who believe that the purpose of thinking is to prove yourself right-to your own satisfaction.†De Bono differentiates between ‘reactive thinking’, which involves listening to an opponent’s case only to attack it and to expose its weaknesses–moment to moment you are attacking or defending– and detached ‘mapmaking thinking’ that is generative and creative and capable of producing proposals, initiative, plans, and action. De Bono values emotions, saying they give relevance to our thinking and must be put forward without justification. “If emotions and feelings are not permitted as inputs in the thinking process, they will lurk in the background and affect all the thinking in a hidden way.†Once we have used thinking to make a mental map, emotions provide the final link between our values and our current needs. Decisions are emotional in the end, as no project will be carried to completion without enthusiasm
Alan discusses de Bono and others:
James replies:
As to the first two, I know people who would say that one playing with the “dark side” or “spirits”
are playing with forces within themselves and otherwise that are “clingy,” not easily disposed of once flirted with, and dangerous.
As to de Bono, he’s an interesting guy. I like his six hats paradigm. Personally, I would agree with those who
view emotions, intuition, etc. as an integral aspect of the thinking process, and not (as de Bono implies)
something external to thinking. Western, analytic thinkers tend to view their discrete, “logical” mental process as “thoughts,” and emotions as something they “think about” and optionally “give weight to” as de Bono recommends.
A different perspective, which I think many meditators may subscribe to, is that the thinking process, thoughts,
are comprised of a range of “stuff” diverse in nature, including those “logical mental activities,”
emotions, gut feelings, physical sensations, wispy dreamy visions, all of them. In this view,
those “Western thinkers” have a tendency to “divorce” parts of their own mind or consciousness,
regarding all but those neat little logical activities as irrelevant “otherness” and nonself.
Those with this view, support de Bono’s notion of paying attention to and using all facets of the mind
(the “six hats”) and go further to understand them as the different “voices” of one’s whole self.
I like this latter viewpoint.
As to the final sentence that “emotions provide the final link between our values and our current needs,”
its interesting to note that when one seems unable to fashion a complete moral framework to
intellectually decide right from wrong, our intuitive or emtional self will often step forward
with its “voice of conscience” so that we “feel good” or “feel bad” about the rightness of something.
Hey, James, welcome back! You must have been thinking about my fourteen questions in all this time, and that’s why you haven’t written back. I know that’s why, because
a) I know you are not a “lowlife”
and
b) You told me I was a “lowlife” and huffed and puffed and ground your teeth for not answering your questions (and haven’t taken all that back since I indeed answered them),
I’d like to know the answers to the following questions about the Ram Bomjon alleged phenomenon, which you say is possible to be true. If you know the Ram Bomjon phenomenon to be possible, then the following questions should be no sweat to address.
Since you’re not a lowlife by any means, since you’ve demonstrated that you’re very well read, and since you’re a very smart cookie, I know that you will answer these questions:
1. How can a human hibernate using body stores of fat without having body stores of fat?
2. Next, I’d like to know how Ram Bomjon managed to walk for five days after hibernating.
3. I’d also like you to tell me how Ram Bomjon shone a light out of his forehead.
4. How does Ram Bomjon manage to have a source of light emanate not just from his forehead, but also from his left side… AND have it enter his chest? They say this is captured on VIDEOTAPE! Wow! How does that work?
5. Is it six months or ten months that Bomjon didn’t take food or water?
6. How did it happen that one of Ram Bomjon’s sisters became unable to speak after she said she doubted the veracity of Ram Bomjon’s meditation without food or water, and remained unable to speak for 22 days? How does that work?
7. How did the previously speechless boy Rajesh Mahat gain the power of speech after seeing Ram Bomjon? How does that work?
8. Is it true that more than 100,000,000 rupees of revenue has been generated from sales surrounding Ram Bomjon? If this is not true, are the other claims in the website that you took as a legitimate source of information true? How do you know the difference?
9. How did one of Ram Bomjon’s ancestors learn how to fly?
10. Is Ram Bomjon an incarnation of Lord Krishna?
11. What did Ram Bomjon mean when he said he had yet to acquire the Buddha’s energy?
12. How will Ram Bomjon bring peace to the world, as he says, through six years of meditation? How does this work?
13. When Gyansagar Lama, “the famous Guru who preaches non-violence,†declares Ram Bomjon to be the reincarnation of Buddha, do you believe him? What’s the standard by which you believe or do not believe him?
14. If, before his meditation, Ram Bomjon “could not walk straight. He limped,†then how could he manage to emerge from (six?) (ten?) months of meditation without eating or drinking and walk for five days and nights to an undisclosed jungle location?
Looking forward to those answers to explain how this all is possible, or to explain how some of it is bullshit, but not other parts, but all from the same source that you took as legitimate, and how you can manage to tell the difference. You don’t have to be coy, James: end that dramatic pause! I’m sure you’re not a “lowlife,” and so I’m sure you’ll answer these questions about the “special” Ram Bomjon phenomenon. I look forward to being educated.
Jim asked a bunch of questions again.
James repeats his same answer given several times before:
At such time as I feel I have useful answers to your questions, I will consider
spending time to post something here. The number of questions I have about your
points are more numerous, then yours. My questions seem more interesting to me too.
James
The questions I asked are in parallel to the questions you raised and regard phenomena parallel to those you felt were necessary to address. When I even took half a day to pause before answering them, you called me a “lowlife.” But you’ve had weeks now and you won’t bite, despite the fact that these questions pertain to material that you took as authoritative.
This is the path, then, of the credulous believer who won’t say “bullshit” to accounts of flying people. Thanks for your lack of an answer. It’s been really illuminating to this “lowlife.”
Jim, you are never going to get a satisfactory answer.
Here’s why:
Post: 286: “A different perspective, which I think many meditators may subscribe to, is that the thinking process, thoughts, are comprised of a range of “stuff†diverse in nature, including those “logical mental activities,â€
emotions, gut feelings, physical sensations, wispy dreamy visions, all of them. In this view,
those “Western thinkers†have a tendency to “divorce†parts of their own mind or consciousness, regarding all but those neat little logical activities as irrelevant “otherness†and nonself.”
Jim,
Being a western thinker, you simply don’t recognize how “wispy dream visions” are as legitimate a source of information as say, experience or rationality. In fact, they are more legitimate as they can override experience and rationality.
Your internal truth detectors are not as finely attuned as James’ are.
Scott, you may be right. I suppose I am a lower form of life than those who have transcended mere rationality. Perhaps I should dream of wispy things more. That may help!
James,
De Bono is saying the thinker gets bogged down when trying to use emotions, logic, information, hope, and creativity all at the same time, and shows a method of dealing with them separately. I think he is not applying the paradigm just to the self, but to group process (like the blog-o-sphere) as well.
I think what you are putting forward is the ‘logical positive’ or constructive type of thinking that uses ‘speculation without justification’. Optimism may be displaced. “We may choose never to back a long shot, but that long shot needs to be on the map.” Debono also talks about creativity, which Western thinking is not very good at: “In the excercise of creative thinking, it may be necessary to put forward as provocations ideas that are deliberately illogical..”
The kind of thinking Jim is putting forward would be mostly the ‘logical negative’, which protects us from mistakes, risk-taking, and danger. De Bono points out the following about the logical negative or “black hat thinking”,
It is much easier to be negative.
It is more fun to be negative.
The logical negative often uses ‘childish negative indulgence’-the sample is absurd therefore the whole is absurd (for an example of this see Jim’s 14 questions!)
Proving someone wrong provides immediate satisfaction.
Offering a constructive idea does not provide any achievement until someone likes the idea or you can show that it works(which takes time).
Attacking an idea gives an instant feeling of superiority.
So, James, what about calling Jim a lowlife? You didn’t really mean it, did you? I don’t agree with name-calling; I’m not enough in touch with my dark side just yet. But Jim called Layla a “twit” and never did apologize for it, so I’m sure Jim has no problem with name-calling. Maybe his dark side is sticky and he finds it hard to dispose of after flirting with it. Just the same, Jim keeps bringing up that “lowlife” thing, so I think you should say something about why you said that. Also the 14 questions are all about Bomjon’s miracles. Maybe you could say whether you believe in the miracles. I myself do not believe in the miracles, but I think they are a code for some deeper spiritual and political values.
A “twit” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a silly annoying person.” Layla was at the time being that to me, so I won’t apologize for using the word. When she stopped being annoying to me, I ceased using the word “twit.”
Alan, read James’ text on “lowlife.” I’m confident he meant it. Oooh, he was pissed off, pissed off because I wouldn’t answer one of his questions after a short period. James got his knickers in a twist because I wouldn’t answer his question, so I decided to ask him a series of questions — questions he won’t answer. Yes, I am rubbing his face in the inconsistency, because he won’t look at it otherwise.
Alan, read James on the miracles of Ram Bomjon not eating or drinking for six (ten?) months and then traipsing off through the woods. James defended the possibility of this with reference to a, hmmm, unique theory of human hibernation, during the course of which he cited the website I refer to in my 14 questions as a reputable source. If James is going to believe that it’s reasonably possible for Ram Bomjon to be hibernating, then he’s going to have to explain the other magical behaviors of Bomjon too.
Look, here’s my point: if you’re going to go out on a limb and say, “Gosh, I really think that Person X might be onto something when he is said to have not had a bite to eat or drink for six (ten?) months,” you might at least want to pick a Person X for which a whole host of other patently ridiculous claims have NOT been made. Ram Bomjon’s followers have made a whole host of patently ridiculous claims about him — so why on this green Earth would you believe any one or two of them? There’s a much simpler answer to all this: Ram Bomjon’s followers are making shit up.
Now about you, Alan, I think you’ve just called me a “childish negative indulger.” Go ahead, call me names. I don’t care. Just don’t get all up on your high horse about being above insults. Please, call me names, but be willing to back them up.
De Bono wrote a book (!) but despite writing a book (!) has it wrong. It’s easier to think that people can hibernate, or fly, or not eat or drink for six (ten?) months and then go on a five-day hike while having a light shine out of their forehead. It’s emotionally comforting to think that, because gosh, then we’re all special and magic and we won’t die and rot and we can defy the whole universe and, gosh, we are the darling center of it all. It’s harder to open your eyes and to herald what is actually there.
Come on Alan,
What is harder?
(i) To do your best to hold your beliefs to some kind of standard that would filter out beliefs unlikely to be true and accept true beliefs?
(ii) To believe whatever will make you a happy camper?
It makes some people happy to believe that if they commit suicide, the big UFO hiding behind the comet will take them to wherever it was they wanted to go.
It makes some people happy to believe that there are WMD in Iraq.
It makes some people happy to believe that they are superior to others because of the color of their skin, or born in a particular country.
It makes some people happy to believe that women are property and can be dealt with as such.
It makes some people happy to believe that God will give them more virgins than can shake their stick at if they crash a plane into a highrise.
You may say that you would not assent to any of these beliefs, but eliminating a standard of belief makes each of these beliefs equally valid. And if you reject them you are just being negative.
Alan wrote:
“………. I think he is not applying the paradigm just to the self, but to group process (like the blog-o-sphere) as well.â€
James replies:
Alan…. I did read some of the “Six Hats†material, including looking over de Bono’s webiste at:
http://www.edwdebono.com/. I also read an interesting interpretation of how to apply de Bono’s views at the “mind tools†website http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_07.htm.
My take on that issue is that de Bono talks about applying the “Six Hat’s approach in group meetings, but also individually. I agree that he recommends applying Six Hats process sequentially, one “Hat†at a time. That certainly implies that he may think there is less clutter and/or more purity in applying each Hat if done one at a time.
But does this mean that the thinking styles signified by the Six Hats are naturally applied that way by people. I happen not to think so. I think that people do have certain inclinations to think in one of the Hats he outlines, but I don’t buy that people do so to the total exclusion of all other Hats. Rather, I think that there is a constant ebb and flow of these multiple thinking styles from moment to moment in people. Often, people try to suppress those thinking styles that are not their strong point, thus denying a part of their self almost subconsciously.
Bottomline, as de Bono suggests, people can try to deliberately try on each Hat by
trying to apply a given thinking stule discreetly, in preference to the other styles,
rotating each one…..and do so either in a group context of on one’s own.
Alan wrote:
“.I think what you are putting forward is the ‘logical positive’ or constructive type of thinking that uses ’speculation without justification’. â€
James replies:
I tend to think your take is an oversimplification, and bit of a forced application of his categories.
If one looks back over the totality of my posts on this one web page, which I suspect is the matter you’re characterizing, it is a mixed bag in my view. In many instances I described my hunches, frankly as such. In other cases I called attention to specific scientific and other web sites containing information that proves, supports, or enlarges on themes I wrote about. In other cases, I’ve offered a few opinions about the logic, or analyses, or attitudes of writers here. I’ve offered the cautious viewpoint that with regard to a lot of this stuff, it seems best to me to suspend a judgment about its reality or credibility until more information and experience comes in – perhaps in a distant future. I don’t think all this behavior can be labeled just “speculation without justification,†especially given all my efforts to cite to sources that lend a justifiying perspective or context to my own opinions.
Alan wrote:
“…..So, James, what about calling Jim a lowlife? You didn’t really mean it, did you? I don’t agree with name-calling….”
James replies:
Yes. I did mean it. I think that “name calling” is a bit of a misnomer. Lowlife is shorthand sometimes to describe what one thinks of another’s values, even though vague it suggestions a dislike. I disliked the kind of behavior and attitudes I saw from Jim in this setting. I disliked the values that seem to underly his attitudes and behavior.
Jim,
I am deeply sympathetic with your plight because I too have been called a lowlife, yes, on this very thread. And I am sad to say I am not immune from the general madness as I have called another poster a ‘hypocrite’ and a ‘troublemaker’ once again on this very thread. The Dark Side is indeed sticky and hard to get rid of once you flirt with it.
I don’t think you’re annoyed with James because he doesn’t agree with you. I think you’re annoyed with James because he pasted thousands and thousands of words from other websites after the other posters asked him not to and he pasted multiple copies of stuff on other converstions. It would bring out anyone’s Dark Side.
If you reread his posts 152 and 155 James says pretty clearly he is just raising a point and doesn’t consider anything proven. I’m not trying to speak for James, he can speak for himself, but it seems to me that’s what he’s saying. You should look again at what he really said.