That evening, when I arrived at the tea house, rezzing was slower than usual, for me and as I figured from the conversations, for others as well. I saw big grey objects falling from the sky, but they didn’t seem to hurt me, so I walked into the tea room, where Maxine was already seated. I kept talking with Dakini and Thorberg, who came in a little later.
Dakini Rhode: did you see something falling from the sky?
Pema Pera: yes
Thorberg Nordlicht: hello, Dakini
Pema Pera: but I was still rezzing
Dakini Rhode: me 2
Pema Pera: so couldn’t see what it was
Dakini Rhode: hi Thor
Pema Pera: rain perhaps?
Dakini Rhode: nor could I
Dakini Rhode: big rain !
Maxine Walden: hi, Pema, nice to see you
Pema Pera: Hi Maxine!
Maxine Walden: here comes Thor
Pema Pera: Dakini and Thor, hi there!
Maxine Walden: Hi Thor, and Dakini
Thorberg Nordlicht: hello
Dakini Rhode: hi Max and PP
Pema Pera: Nice new appearance Dakini!
Pema Pera: Tibetan inspired?
Dakini Rhode: old appearance :-)
Maxine Walden: still nice
Dakini Rhode: wild mountain nun :-)
Pema Pera: hahaha
Pema Pera: you make us all seem tame
Thorberg Nordlicht: wild!
Maxine Walden: hard to imagine, well, then again maybe not
Dakini had come in clad in dark red robes with various ornaments hanging over it.
Dakini Rhode: o you didn’t see my big hiking pole
Maxine Walden: no, how big was it
Maxine Walden: oh, there it is
Thorberg Nordlicht: nice! is it scripted?
Dakini Rhode: no :-(((
Pema Pera: wow!
Thorberg Nordlicht: I want a walking stick that keeps me walking forward even without holding down the forward arrow key :-)
Pema Pera: Do you every hit your poor zen students with it?
Dakini Rhode: haha
Thorberg Nordlicht: thwak!
Dakini Rhode: no only with the frying pan
Pema Pera: ahahaha
Pema Pera: a frying pan!
Pema Pera: wow
Thorberg Nordlicht: hmmm, hadn’t heard of that
Pema Pera: out of the fire into . . . .
Maxine Walden: yes, into the…
Indeed Dakini had materialized a shining new frying pan, after her big staff had come and gone. She moved around with it in one hand, while typing with the other.
Thorberg Nordlicht: which Buddhist tradition uses a frying pad? :-)
Pema Pera: combining bell and stick
Pema Pera: with one boing
Thorberg Nordlicht: *pan
Dakini Rhode: hmmm the wild forest nun tradition
Pema Pera: I like frying pad Thor
Dakini Rhode: can cook with it too
Thorberg Nordlicht: i see; i think i’ll steer clear of them
Pema Pera: cooking up a Storm soon?
Thorberg Nordlicht: yes, frying pad, too
Pema Pera: sorry, couldn’t help myself
Thorberg Nordlicht: :-)
Dakini Rhode: lol no need for that :-)
Thorberg Nordlicht: hey, Friedrich!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: knock knock. good evening!
Pema Pera: Hi Fred!
Dakini Rhode: I’ll just wear my Arhat title haha
Maxine Walden: here comes Friedrich, hi Fred
Dakini Rhode: Hi Fred!
Friedrich must have wondered what Dakini was up to, when he walked in.
Pema Pera: hahaha, does Arhat really bug Storm?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: ’sup
Dakini Rhode: hey you’re not blogging yet right?
Pema Pera: weeeeellllll
Pema Pera: that’s still to be seen my dear
Dakini Rhode: oh i don’t know if anything REALLY bugs Storm
Dakini Rhode: Storm is cool
Maxine Walden: a cool Storm
Dakini Rhode: Pema is cool
Maxine Walden: everyone is cool
Dakini Rhode: Max Thor and Fred are cool
Maxine Walden: we all are cool, the coolest
Thorberg Nordlicht: :-)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: but, is SL a hot or cool medium…
Dakini Rhode: lol
Friedrich Ochsenhorn blushes
Dakini Rhode: brb - laundry
Thorberg Nordlicht: hmm, mutual admiration society, huh?
Pema Pera: well, Storm can cool us all down with his rainstorms
Pema Pera: was that rain that was falling outside?
Pema Pera: I was still rezzing . . ..
Pema Pera: big grey blocks
Pema Pera: or flower petals?
Pema Pera: Ah, I see a drizzle still outside now, must have been it I guess
We talked a bit more about the weather.
Maxine Walden: it does look like its misting rain out there; in my part of the country we have 47 names for rain
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: chortle
Pema Pera: in Holland we have quite a lot too
Maxine Walden: birds don’t seem to mind the rain
Maxine Walden: nor the frogs nor crickets
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: isnt holland mostly below sea level?
Dakini Rhode: hello agin
Pema Pera: half of it is below yes
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: yeah, one thing i like about the rain is that it alleviates the pressure to be cheerful. sunny days demand it, but w/ rain, you have the option
Pema Pera: :-)
Dakini Rhode: haha Fred
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: gloomy entitlment
Maxine Walden: ’tis so, isn’t it; on the other hand when it is raining and you have to be inside it is not as taxing as when it is lovely and sunny
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: right. similar idea.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: oh wait - i thought we were agreeing ;-)
Thorberg Nordlicht: violently agreeing
Pema Pera: hehe
Dakini Rhode looks for her big violent staff
Pema Pera: Seeing Dakini in her wild form, swinging around poles and frying pans, I feel I should say something about my own PaB practice . . . .
Maxine Walden: please
Pema Pera: . . . before she summons me
Dakini Rhode: you weren’t here for the demo Fred
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: rock, paper, scissors, anyone?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: whoa. i think that beats all 3
I remembered Dakini’s earlier attempts to get me to talk about my practice, and in her current semi-wrathful form, I did not want to take any changes.
Pema Pera: I’ve started doing PaB almost two months ago now
Pema Pera: shortly before we started these sessions on April 1, and my main report is one of surprise:
Pema Pera: surprise at how different each new 9-sec session is,
Pema Pera: even though I have done so many now, in the last 60 days . . . . .
Pema Pera: hahaha
Pema Pera: I’d better keep going
Maxine Walden: please do, Pema
Pema Pera: saw that there frying pan flying just over my had
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: eek - your skirt is in the fire!
Thorberg Nordlicht: Pema, i forget,do you also have a more formal meditation practice, in addition to your 9sec/15min practice?
Dakini Rhode: no prob PP, my hands are occupied with folding laundry
Pema Pera: each time when I stop I have absolutely no idea what will pop up in my mind
Maxine Walden: really?
Pema Pera: and sometimes I feel like making a type of guess
Pema Pera: but then often what actually comes up is totally different
Maxine Walden: anticipatory?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: I haven’t made it too far past my immediated visual (sometimes emotional) stimulus
Pema Pera: My normal mind wants to anticipate
Pema Pera: but then that doesn’t work
Pema Pera: the opening created lets in something different
At that moment Janmont stopped by, for the first time.
Thorberg Nordlicht: hello Janmont
Pema Pera: Hi Janmont
Pema Pera: please join us!
Maxine Walden: interesting my experience is slightly different, I rather know the approximate area of my experience to come
Janmont Pinklady: Greetings! I’d love to - for a little bit!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: evenin’
Maxine Walden: hello, Janmont
Pema Pera: have you been here before, Janmont?
Janmont Pinklady: I have never been here.
Thorberg Nordlicht: have a seat, Janmont
Pema Pera: we gather here four times a day
Thorberg Nordlicht: ((right-click a cushion and select “sit here”)
Pema Pera: to talk about many things, including the nature of reality
Pema Pera: but then very informally
Pema Pera: I was just talking about my experiences with a type of micro-meditation we are doing
Janmont Pinklady: Thank you.
Pema Pera: 9 seconds at a time, four times an hour
Pema Pera: http://playasbeing.wordpress.com/ gives the background
Thorberg Nordlicht: “micro-meditation”; we haven’t used that term before; i like that
Pema Pera: to answer Thor’s question:
Pema Pera: at the moment I am not doing formal meditation
Pema Pera: though I have been doing that for many years in many forms
Pema Pera: right now coming here three times a day and writing the blog is my practice
Pema Pera: probably takes me, oh, six hours a day or so ;>)
Janmont Pinklady: That’s a lot of work.
Pema Pera: will have to reduce that a bit to make it sustainable
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: and you introduced this cause you didnt have the time to meditate ;-)
Pema Pera: yeah, but worth it
We talked more about various approaches to practice.
Thorberg Nordlicht: the reason i ask is that — in the soto zen tradition, at least — it’s expected that formal practice will extend into all other aspects of your life; and i think that influences the micro-meditation technique
Maxine Walden: that is a lot of time…
Pema Pera: haha, Fred
Pema Pera: yes, Thor, traditionally you let meditation extend into real life
Maxine Walden: I have found Thor that the PaB practice has extended into most all areas for me
Pema Pera: but here we do it the other way around
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: janmonth: I was kidding. that’s just the elevator pitch. thinking you dont have the time.
Pema Pera: we “seed” real life and take it from there
Thorberg Nordlicht: as i hear people talk about their experiences with micro-meditation, i make a distinction between those who do “micro” exclusively and those who have a formal practice
Thorberg Nordlicht: what you’re describing about your micro-mediataion — surprised what comes up — is also certainly true of a formal practice
Thorberg Nordlicht: in the soto tradition, we’re taught to expect anything/everything and just observe whatever comes up
Pema Pera: I’m not sure whether such a distinction would cut across all the personalities and backgrounds — everybody is so different
Pema Pera: but yes, of course, formal practice helps
Pema Pera: but life experience and/or natural talent helps too
Dakini Rhode: what you say Thor is so true
Thorberg Nordlicht: not suggestion enforcing such a distinction, just noticing the difference
Pema Pera: yes, I agree Thor
Various strands of conversations started to intertwine.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: on the topic of the nature of reality and undisciplined practices, i had a provacative encounter thiw weekend
Dakini Rhode: In long retreats I think I ‘ve run the whole gamut of emotion and experience…. just sitting on a cushion
Maxine Walden: Fried, what was your experience?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i atttended a retrospective on albert hofman, and hung out w/ the psyched=elic enthusiasts
Maxine Walden: oh?
Thorberg Nordlicht: i’m always surprised what come up for me, like “where the heck did THAT come from?”
Maxine Walden: know what you mean…
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: very similar themes, but i reacted differently to the conversation than i might have a few years ago
Maxine Walden: that’s also interesting to observe
Dakini Rhode: My surprise is that I thought emotions and thoughts originated with something “out there” haha
Thorberg Nordlicht: maybe another distinction to take note of is “meditation practices specifically intended to achieve a specific state of mind” vs. “practices to simply observe what comes up”
Dakini Rhode: which merely seems to be a prop
Dakini Rhode: ah yes Thor
Pema Pera: btw, Thor, if I may interject another point: you mentioned that it was not very efficient to re-explain PaB each time someone new comes in — but I do find that I am explaining PaB slightly different each time, as you saw now with the “micro meditation” — so I’m not sure whether verbal explanation might still not be the best, above note cards — or perhaps we should do both
Maxine Walden: a real discovery, that the out there is more a reflection of what we bring to it, at least for me
Dakini Rhode: both maybe
Maxine Walden: the notion that the mind and perspective of the observer affecting the data observed at one level sounds obvious but at another, at least for me it is profound
Thorberg Nordlicht: even if there is only one objective reality, we all have our own perception of it? is that what you mean, Maxine?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i think it is rather difficult to take seriously the proposition that we are activley co-constructing reality w/ our (inter)subjectivity
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i think folks pay lip service to that idea, but when followed to its logical conclusions, the implications are quite serious
Janmont Pinklady: Thanks you for allowing me to enter. I might like to visit again if you’ll allow. What hours do you meet?
At this moment I lost my internet connection. Afterward, Maxine sent me her chat log, from which I took the following missing part.
Pema Pera is Offline
Maxine Walden: yes, I am not so sure there is only one objective reality, I rather think that each of us with our different minds/observations ‘create’ (not quite the right word but it will do) a part of reality, the notions of parallel universes comes to my mind re this
Thorberg Nordlicht: but, even setting aside any “mystical” implications for the moment, physiologially a great deal of processing takes place between the raw data of experience and what we actually “see” in our conscious mind
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: janmont: I think its 1, 7, 1, 7 SL Time
Dakini Rhode: are we speaking of reality as “stuff” or as our evaluations, opinions, judgments, etc. … which I have to say make up more of experience than just dealing with”matter”
Dakini Rhode: yes what Thor just said
Janmont Pinklady: OK. Thank you!
Thorberg Nordlicht: are you leaving us, Janmont?
Dakini Rhode: Matter doesn’t “matter” to us all that much
Maxine Walden: I agree, with that Dakini
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: “language” probably does though, perhaps
Maxine Walden: I actually think that our inner states affect how/what we perceive ‘out there’
Dakini Rhode: i find i inhabit a world of thought… which is apparently self generating
Dakini Rhode: self feeding
Dakini Rhode: and self supporting
Maxine Walden: yes, agree there too
Dakini Rhode: very interesting to “see” it
Maxine Walden: (where did Pema go?)
Maxine Walden: yes,
I managed to regain my internet connection.
Pema Pera is Online
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, my reality is likely built on metaphors - pretty hard to return to pure sensory experience
Maxine Walden: oh, crashed perhaps
Maxine Walden: is that so Fried, built on metaphors?
Maxine Walden: over sensory experience?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: implicit and explicit
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: probably.
Thorberg Nordlicht: hey Pema, welcome back
Pema Pera: internet disconnect, sorry
Maxine Walden: yes, thought that must have happened
Thorberg Nordlicht: we solved all the philosophical problems of the ages while you were gone; too bad you missed it :-)
Pema Pera: my cell phone connection is not too reliable
Pema Pera: ahahaha
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: yeah, i think so. pattern recognition, perception, the works. All based on implicit metaphors
I asked a predicted question.
Pema Pera: can someone send me the chat log, so that I can add the missing piece?
Maxine Walden: yes, agree
Dakini Rhode: now he’ll ask us for the transcript :-P
Dakini Rhode: o i see he already did
Thorberg Nordlicht: sorry, it was too profound for the chat log; you just had to be here :-)
Maxine Walden: sure, I’ll do that, Pema
Pema Pera: thanks, Maxine!
Pema Pera: so I am predictable, hey?
Pema Pera: hahaha, Thor
Maxine Walden: Thor, shall I take out the good stuff from the chatlog?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: we’re actually not sure you aren’t a bot…
Thorberg Nordlicht: Maxine, i’ll leave that up to you
Pema Pera: wait till I triple myself
Maxine Walden: OK, will use my best judgment
Maxine Walden: triple yourself, Pema?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: funny PaB game. trying to interpolate missing lines.
Dakini Rhode: Let your alts take some of the load Pema
Thorberg Nordlicht: so, were we talking about “objective reality” vs. “individual perception”
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i’ll bet in 30 seconds we could hop across the galaxy in associations
Maxine Walden: some of us raising the question whether there really is an objective reality
Maxine Walden: or whether our thoughts, moods, perceptions create the reality we inhabit
Pema Pera: perhaps neither
From here on the conversation heated up, with sometimes multiple thread interweaving.
Thorberg Nordlicht: certainly a good question, but i’m also suggesting we all have our own perception regardless of whether there’s actually an objective reality or not
Pema Pera: perhaps we are as much part of the dream as what we see around us
Dakini Rhode: i think the 2 are not mutually exclusive
Pema Pera: objective is always a question of context
Pema Pera: with respect to what
Maxine Walden: yes, agree
Thorberg Nordlicht: i think, sometimes, philosophical discussions like this get hung up thinking we have to solve the “objective reality” problem first, when i fact we can make progress regardless
Dakini Rhode: exse phone
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: before i weighed myself down w/ jargon, i meant to point out that many folks claim that reality is a social construct, but rarely follow that line of thought all the way through
Thorberg Nordlicht: well, isn’t there a “consensus reality” that influcences our perception?
Pema Pera: Hi Johnson!
Pema Pera: Feel free to join us
Pema Pera: in the tea house
I had seen Johnson walking by and I invited him in. A while later he would indeed join us.
Maxine Walden: so many perspectives, all of which have some validity
Maxine Walden: and Pema keeps bringing us back to the notion of the dream or movie
Thorberg Nordlicht: for example, we all sit here assuming we’re having a shared experience of avatars sitting in a tea house in SL, when in fact, I’m just looking at pixels on my computer screen :-)
Dakini Rhode: in fact i’m just folding laundry
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, perhaps its important to point out how seriously we seem to take experience as a legitimate form of evidence
Thorberg Nordlicht: before I was enlightenened I folded laundry, and after i was enlightened I folded laundry
Dakini Rhode: and how practice can cut through that
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i mean, i trust my experience, but not sure i could easily convince a skeptic that this is anything but a bunc of pixels on a computer sreen
Pema Pera: well, there are two interesting and very different sides to this discussion: the theoretical and the experiential one — like in physics: theory and experiment, and if you don’t take both into account you can’t figure anything out. I don’t know whether we have time to get into both now, but perhaps I can summarize each in one sentence . . . .
Pema Pera: Hi Johnson, welcome!
Maxine Walden: hello, Johnson, nice to meet you
Thorberg Nordlicht: I agree Friedrich; the problem is the sceptic must agree to “immerse” in this virtual reality to see it
Johnson Euler: Hello all.
Thorberg Nordlicht: hello Johnson
Pema Pera: theoretically, any conclusion that anything is objective, and independent of us is suspect — who is to take a view from nowhere?
Thorberg Nordlicht: if the sceptic insists on remaining “sceptical” he can’t immerse in the consensus reality that what’s going on here is avatars sitting in a teahouse
Pema Pera: experientially, if you really walk around seeing everything as a reflection of your mood and sensitivity that can then help shift your sense of who you are
Pema Pera: and those two approaches can then be combined
Pema Pera: letting theory and experience inform each other
The discussion rolled on.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, if we’re making it up as we’re going along, let’s make up a happier ending ;-)
Dakini Rhode: .
Dakini Rhode: (i did that to stop the typing animation)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: ah, but how to teach that sensibility/capacity/awareness (never mind develop it more fully w/ in)
Thorberg Nordlicht: ((thinking about Friedrichs comment: is what we’re saying the same as “makeing it up as we go along”?))
Pema Pera: Johnson, you’re dropping into a conversation about the nature of reality, something we do here four times a day, 1 am 7 am 1 pm 7 pm SLT; see http://playasbeing.wordpress.com/
Dakini Rhode: well here’s where the idea of “making up reality” falls apart….
Dakini Rhode: Thor, did I make you up?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: colloquially….
Thorberg Nordlicht: i’m not sure we’re saying that we’re “making up reality”
Dakini Rhode: Pema, did I make you up?
Dakini Rhode: right
Pema Pera: well, a character in a movie does not make up the movie
Pema Pera: the projector and the director have roles
Pema Pera: very different ones
Pema Pera: and the ticket sales person
Dakini Rhode: But my experience of you could be essentially fabricated
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: surely it gets more complicated when there is more than one subject around making things up, but if it were just you alone in the world, that might be a very teneble position to hold
Pema Pera: and the cleaning lady
Maxine Walden: But Dakini, the you I see comes probably more from my experience and inferences about you than the objective you
Dakini Rhode: yes i agree Max
Maxine Walden: Poor Johnson, maybe he wonders what kind of a discussion he came into
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: psst, Johnson: we’re confused too ;-)
Maxine Walden: interesting how passionate we all seem to feel about some of these things
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, like this practice is somewhat inverted, i think these conversations ordinarly start on the other end
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: at least in my experience. that is, with a bit of theory, framework, and some shared langauge
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: here, we just jumped right in
Maxine Walden: ah
Maxine Walden: yes we rather did, didn’t we?
Dakini Rhode: well speaking of the practice, the practice can create a gap, and in that gap, we may allow “objective reality” to inform us
Maxine Walden: interesting thought, Dakini
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i suppose friends do that all the time, but not necessarily about these topics
Johnson joined the conversations.
Pema Pera: And Johnson, please feel free to jump in — we have no rules here, all very informal (^_^)
Thorberg Nordlicht: for me, this is an exploration of what’s possible to communicate in this SL virtual medium
Johnson Euler: I have a pretty down to earth view. We are what we are. That’s where it begins. Then on top of that we layer on our human sensibilities.
Dakini Rhode: rather than constantly projecting onto it
Dakini Rhode: ?
Pema Pera: but what are we?
Thorberg Nordlicht: i find text chat to be very limiting, but then am amazed at how much we actually DO seem to be communicating in spite of the limitations
Dakini Rhode: imagine if we were all TALKING at once lol
Pema Pera: chat can force us to focus on the core of what we want to say
Maxine Walden: with some rim of silence which actually enhances it for me
Pema Pera: hahaha, Dakini
Pema Pera: you would then really need your frying pan!
Johnson Euler: Here we’re anything we want to be. We are our dreams.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i do like to see how far i can take the idea that our inner and outer worlds are one and the same. identical, in some way.
Pema Pera: yes, Johnson, but is that so different in RL? I mean, we normally take for granted a whole lot in RL, but perhaps SL can show us that much of that can be loosened . . . .
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: which, is one answer to the question what we are, but elliptical
Dakini Rhode: so many good thoughts here…
Maxine Walden: yes, many good thoughts…
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: someone should be taking notes!
Pema Pera: since these thoughts will go into the blog, we can later pick them up again
Johnson Euler: In RL, we are what we are. Then on top of that, each of us decides what game we want to be in. A victim’s game, a warrior’s game…..
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: (phew)
Thorberg Nordlicht: ((taking notes == pema’s blog))
Maxine Walden: right!! guess the chatlog may be the notes
I was intrigued by Johnson’s starting point.
Pema Pera: can you say what you mean, Johnson, when you say: we are what we are?
Pema Pera: I don’t know who I am
Pema Pera: I do know what roles I play
Pema Pera: but not who I am
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: sorry - just my sense of humor. yes, that is one significant advantage to texting. transparent note taking
Maxine Walden: I will have to go soon, and can take the log with me or leave it for someone else who stays longer
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: what if - you are the summation of the choices you have made in your lifetime
Johnson Euler: I think our base existance is simple, like all animal existance. Then we try to layer on additional meaning.
Pema Pera: Maxine, if I don’t crash again, your log so far is sufficient for me to fill the gaps
Maxine Walden: great, I will take it when I go then
Johnson Euler: Why do we exist? What is our purpose? Did God create us? Will we go to Heaven?
Johnson Euler: Those are things we layer on to our base existance.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: Multiple choice?
Pema Pera: bye Max!
Maxine Walden: I can stay for a minute more or so
Pema Pera: Yes, Johnson, that is one perspective, and I agree that it is a valid one — but not the only one
Dakini Rhode: speaking of a base existence, what is the base? where are “you” located?
Thorberg Nordlicht: well, guys, sorry to leave right when Johnson poses so many new questions, but it’s 8:00 and I have to get back to RL
Pema Pera: bye Thor!
Thorberg Nordlicht: bye bye for now
Thor left us, while the discussion continued.
Pema Pera: we can add and subtract
Pema Pera: add as you explained
Pema Pera: but we can also excavate our base
Pema Pera: our understanding of it
Pema Pera: subtract
Pema Pera: and re-evaluate
Maxine Walden: bye all
Johnson Euler: Bye Max
Dakini Rhode: nite Thor
Dakini Rhode: bye Max
Dakini Rhode: I’m seriously lagging
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i totally just ended up in another universe trying to move seats
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: this teahouse is from another dimension
Dakini Rhode: yes! it happend to me as well!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: nice touch! even if it was accidental.
Dakini Rhode: Max has disconnected
Pema Pera: probably wanted to save the log
Pema Pera: becoming a log herself ;>)
Dakini Rhode: haha
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: heh.
Dakini Rhode: what a sacrifice :-)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: a be-log?
Dakini Rhode groans
Johnson posed some pertinent questions, and we responded in different ways.
Johnson Euler: What if we have no significance? What we were some kind of arts and craft project for a God that’s long since forgotten us. Would that change anything?
Pema Pera: Friedrich and Johnson, if you like, I really would be interested in probing further our prior assumptions as to where we start: we are what we are is on the one hand a very sensible starting point, on the other hand it excludes a lot from investigation, and perhaps we have then already built in what we can possible conclude
Pema Pera: and that affects all questions about God and meaning
Pema Pera: If we start with too limited assumptions
Pema Pera: we may limit possible meaning we can find
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, our trust in experience as a valid form of evidence/inquiry is reasonable to me, but i think is where this project might lose alot of people
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: that’s one assumption, no? central?
Pema Pera: experience — we often use that words as a package for theory-laden experience . . . .
Pema Pera: so how to cleanse experience?
Pema Pera: a male chauvinist pig experiences feminism as nonsense . . . .
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: try on alternate points of view? recogize the boundaries of your own?
Pema Pera: or drop all points of view
Pema Pera: it may or may not be possible
Pema Pera: only one way to find out , to try
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: you can gesture at it.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: still, i still feel we’re stuck. hermetically sealed in a conversation others don’t have access to. or don’t think they do
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i meant, that’s the crux. there is no rational way to get here, stepwise, is there
Pema Pera: no
Pema Pera: but there are alternatives to pure rationality, as we call it
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: cause it itself is the starting point
Pema Pera: there are forms of seeing — nothing mystic or esoteric
Pema Pera: just the kind of seeing like seeing a mathematical proof
Pema Pera: aha!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well, this also runs smack into the wall of why its so important to convince anyone else of anything. accept things as they are.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: quite an ethical conundrum, this balance between acceptance and intension
I could see Fred’s points, but I also wanted to show that there is a much more direct way to see what is real, beyond intellectual reasoning.
Pema Pera: if someone wants to give up smoking, they can reason for years but there may be a point where someone suddenly really SEES the addiction he/she is trapped in, and then it may be possible to push out the last cigaret and drop the habit completely — reasoning doesn’t have that poewr
Johnson Euler: I perceive lots of things young people do as nonsense. Like showing off butt cleavage. But that’s perception. If I strip all my perceptions away I’m left with my essential animal. Then I can decide which perceptions to layer back on.
Pema Pera: are you sure?
Johnson Euler: Am I getting the point?
Pema Pera: if you reason about what will happen when you strip everything away
Pema Pera: then you reason: I will become an animal
Pema Pera: but if you really try to do it as an experiment
Dakini Rhode: folks i’m going to call it a night
Pema Pera: perhaps something else can happen
Pema Pera: Bye Dakini!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: g’night dakini.
Dakini Rhode: be well!
Pema Pera: happy dreams!
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: snicker
Johnson Euler: Goodnight Dakini.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: yes, we can continue this another time too, if you all prefer.
Pema Pera: we probably should keep these sessions to an hour, yes
Pema Pera: much as I’d be happy to continue forever ;>)
Pema Pera: since these are the most important questions I can think of
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: heh. we do have eternity
Pema Pera: But given that we started at 7 pm
Pema Pera: we probably should continue next time
Pema Pera: Thanks for stopping by Johnson!
Pema Pera: I hope we’ll see you at other sessions
Given how interesting the discussion had become, it was hard to stop.
Johnson Euler: Pema, before you go, I have a question.
Pema Pera: sure
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i will just say that i want to tread more carefully here after hearing some of the ways the psychedelic astraunuts dealt w/ similar themes… to be continued
Johnson Euler: How many ways are you able to approach this discussion?
Johnson Euler: I fear I may be locked into one way.
Pema Pera: infinitely many ways I think ;>)
Pema Pera: which is your way?
Pema Pera: the one you are locked in?
Johnson Euler: Just a thought process I’ve been working on since youth. A particular view of the way things are.
Pema Pera: I very much appreciate your clarity
Pema Pera: that is absolutely necessary to start a dialogue
Pema Pera: but then there comes a point where you can use that clarity to investigate your basic assumptions
Pema Pera: that is what happened in physics and mathematics in the 20th century
Pema Pera: in the 18th and 19th very clear systems were built
Pema Pera: classical mechanics and classical mathematics
Pema Pera: but then came quantum mechanics and Goedel
Pema Pera: and both turned out to be only approximations
Pema Pera: reality was far more rich
Pema Pera: even though of course in daily life
Pema Pera: bridges are still bridges and arithmetic is still arithmetic
Pema Pera: does that make sense?
Johnson Euler: Do you have a solid belief paradigm? Or does yours shift?
Pema Pera: life is a circle of learning: you take the best base you can find, built your understanding on that, then use that understanding to critically investigate your base — wash, rinse, repeat
Pema Pera: nothing solid
Pema Pera: only openness
Pema Pera: I am not a Buddhist
Pema Pera: but I appreciate the notion of emptiness
Pema Pera: though I prefer to call it openness
Pema Pera: quantum mechanics tells us that even in matter there is nothing solid
Pema Pera: only probability waves, information that is partly potential partly actual
Pema Pera: so why should mind be more solid than that?
Pema Pera: or any “basic” assumptions?
Pema Pera: what is called a base is often an umbrella — attempts to protect ourselves from rains of doubt
Again, Johnson made a valid point, Fred elaborated, and we continued our discussion.
Johnson Euler: Speaking of that, I think a lot of our beliefs are rooted in what makes us feel good.
Pema Pera: yes!!
Johnson Euler: But is that reality?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: so?
Pema Pera: no
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i’m in the odd position of having western analytical philosophy drive me to faith.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i took the skeptical hypotheses quite seriously
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: and realize, there is tons of stuff i believe in, on faith, that i could never prove
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: so, i get to decide what i want to believe in
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: sorry, i should have said, have taken on the responsibility of recognizing that i need to be explicit about what i choose to have faith in
Johnson Euler: If we decided to believe in human decency without expecting reward, would that be okay?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: with who?
Pema Pera: well, it would be one start — it is the follow-up which is most important, much more than the choice of start
Johnson Euler: The idea of eternal reward I think makes life here seem less urgent and precious.
Pema Pera: yes
Pema Pera: so better to drop that
Johnson Euler: It also makes acts of kindness less sincere.
Pema Pera: yes
Johnson Euler: If eternal reward happens, that’s great but not great as a feeling of entitlement.
Pema Pera: yup
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: and, talk about undecidable…. I have no idea how we would ever have insight into the afterlife
Pema Pera: so if I were a traditional believer, you would ask me to drop that ; and then I would ask you what you would want to drop in return — what would you say?
Pema Pera: Fried, true believers may think they have answer for that
Pema Pera: but I am not interested in their argumetns
Pema Pera: much more in the question of what can be dropped
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i don’t really understand why i am so willng to drop or bracket that conversation too.
Johnson responded to my question.
Johnson Euler: I don’t know what I’d drop. I don’t have expectations.
Pema Pera: but many assumptions . . ..
Pema Pera: . . . starting assumptions
Pema Pera: results of being born in a particular culture, and place and time
Pema Pera: you would surely have different convictions if you would have been raised totally different
Pema Pera: so reflecting on that, how much of your convictions do you think are really universal?
Johnson Euler: I live a certain way because it’s comfortable. But I don’t believe I live righteously. Or that I’m entitled to what I have.
Pema Pera: I am constantly questioning that too, yes
Pema Pera: for myself
Pema Pera: but the most efficient way to question that, I think, is to go back to the foundations on which I tend to build my understanding
Pema Pera: if I make mistakes there, they will color everything else
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: I’ll say that I desperately want to live in a world that contains Love, Beauty, Peace, and Meaning.
Pema Pera: I have been totally amazed by how much I have been able to toss from what I thought was my base
Pema Pera: and how in return at each step beauty and love could shine through more
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: you sure you wanna toss those?
Pema Pera: yes, Fried
Pema Pera: no
Pema Pera: they shine through
Pema Pera: when you toss the rest
Pema Pera: genuinely
Pema Pera: yes was for your earlier remark ;>)
Johnson Euler: I think there’s a lot to be gained by tossing the notion that I’m right or good or decent.
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i’ll buy that. but, we do play an active role in noticing htem. I think some peoeple do live in realities that are abscent of those values
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: heh. i figured that out!
Pema Pera: yes, Johnson!
Pema Pera: hahaha
Pema Pera: reading between the lines here is an art
Pema Pera: quite fun actually
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: bad lag tonight though. its been harder than normal
I found it hard to express in words what was on my mind, but the word `innocent’ seemed to fit best.
Pema Pera: I feel that year after year I am learning to be more innocent . . . .
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: anyway, its driven by desire. so shoot me. bad buddist. (Johnson: kidding. that came up earlier this week)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: reassuring. I’m getting older too!
Pema Pera: . . . .they more I drop, the more I sense a kind of naturall innocence
Pema Pera: people talk about a “disarming attitude”
Pema Pera: the more I drop, the less I am afraid or concerned about how I come across
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: innocently subversive?
Pema Pera: not even sub ;>)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: heh
Pema Pera: versatile
Pema Pera: more
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: well versed
Pema Pera: hahaha
Pema Pera: each base we assume gives us something to defend
Pema Pera: Johnson, you spot that so clearly in religious fanatics
Pema Pera: but I would say: it holds for all of us
The conversation moved back to the RL/SL connection.
Johnson Euler: Ah, I see from your profiles that your inner selves are what you project in SL.
Pema Pera: how so?
Johnson Euler: I think we’re all younger here than we are in RL. For one thing.
Pema Pera: well, you and I may be, ;>) I’m 55. Fred actually is a young turk ;>)
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: i’ve been told I hvae an old soul….
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: 7432 years old, i think, to be precise
Pema Pera: but yes, SL and RL are not that different . . . . on the level in which we express ourselves
Johnson Euler: I’m 46. I was showing my wife my avatar and told her I tried to make him look like the real me.
Johnson Euler: She laughed and said Johnson doesn’t look like me, he looks like Brad Pitt.
Johnson Euler: I said, what’s the difference?
Friedrich Ochsenhorn: Fried is )
Pema Pera: I happen to be in Kyoto for a couple months to come, for my work
Pema Pera: time for lunch
Pema Pera: but good night to you both!