1872Re: [sl] Chinese Dragons
- Feb 1, 2001Terrie,
I've been thinking about your post.
Terrie Halprin wrote:
> Hi Mark,That's one view. The logical consequence of reducing existence to our ability
> I tried e-mailing to the list, again -but, evidently, at the moment there's
> still some techn. difficulties -or, something like that. Anyway, I wanted
> to send this along.
> Monday I tripped over some interesting philosophy that I had wanted to
> relate. You know how there's been this long standing philosophical yearning
> for understanding/articulating the "philosophical nature of existence" -the
> prevailing view being that the nature of existence lies within our ability
> to perceive it
to percieve it is that without ourselves, there is (or was) nothing. This seems
to me to be contradiction of all our knowledge, since we are sure that at some
point we did not exist, but at that time, we are equally sure that "something"
did in fact, exist.
> therefore existence =perception -or, visa-versa.The nature of reality is tied up with ourselves in that we are a part of what we
percieve. The presumption, often unconsious, that we can seperate ourselves
from the enviornment has been proven untrue, therefore there is actually no
possibility of being able to know what a process, or object, or anything would
have been had we not existed in the first place and wished to know it (or
percieve it) in the second place. For this reason and others of a thermodynamic
nature, knowledge itself is both a prime physical cause of reality, and an
effect of it.
> Well, I wasAttention is the willful exercise of perception, an aspect of the conscious
> wondering, what if, really, perception, has an equal and opposite (a vital)
> -what if that opposite is attention -isn't that beautiful! It's like
> noticing the "art of life" or something.
mind, whereas it may be argued that perception is an aspect of the unconscious
mind, as we often "percieve" - our sensory organs are operative - without being
aware of it.
> Anyway, the first thing I thought about relating was this body/mind/soundAll physical existence is in flow, if for no other reason than the passage of
> rap I've been watching for awhile. I watch body/mind/sound cuz they are
> "active participants" for us -receptive is nice, yes, and beautifully
> important BUT active is active -and, so I kinda think that it is always well
> worth paying "attention" to. (Ha!) Now, if: perception =mind, Attention
> =body -what about sound -right? That's what I wondered... (and, [red,
> yellow, blue] what color/combo. expresses it.) and then, it occurred to me
> -sound is another menses -it's "flow" between the body and the mind.
time, which is the ultimate flow.
> OfThe often noted correlation between the number of days in a woman's cycle and
> couse!! Isn't that interesting. So, now, I'm wondering/looking into it
> -how exactly does/can "sound menses" arrangements tie in/relate and effect
> their environment. The moon/moon phases (water ways/flow) are, of course,
> the first, important aspects/access that I wanna try to understand more
the days in the Lunar cycle (28 each, right?) has never been explained
physically that I know of. Has anyone ever read a physical, biological
explanation for the length of the human cycle and does it have anything to do
with the phases of the Moon?
People of very ancient times also must have been aware of the coincidence,
because the Moon has always been associated with the female, and (by default!)
the Sun with the male. This may be crucially important. It may be the earliest
reason to believe that moving objects in the sky affect human life on Earth. If
the Moon can have such a powerful effect on the Ocean as to cause tides, and on
the human body as to cause the reproductive cycle, then what can be the effects
of the Planets? And if the way that the effect is made is numerical, and
mathematical in nature (the 28 days) why not look for other numerical,
mathematical relationships between the objects in the sky and life on the Earth?
> And, actually, this reminds me of the "armonica" too -Anyway, I
> think sound is naturally/magically related to the moon and the oceans
> because it's another natural flow. Does that make sound red (in the grand
> scheme of things)? I wonder -but, then I'm always wondering something...
> Best wishes,
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>