Snow White's Apple (a variation of spirituality)

Snow White's Apple

**********************************************************************
Snow White's mistake was that she tried to eat an abstraction, since apples are more thought than thing. The witch knew this (that's the sort of thing witches specialize in) and was trying to poison Snow White's mind, not body.

So let's talk about apples. For openers, orchards aren't apple machines. More specifically, apple trees don't "make apples". But the problem is we humans are so hypnotized by language that it's almost impossible for us to "see things like they are". Anyway, why bother if we already basically know the truth of things?

This is called believing is seeing and every time we think that we should receive a small electric shock because we DON'T already basically know the truth of things. If we did, we'd know apples "aren't what they seem" -- and neither is anything else for that matter (including us!).

An apple is the coming into form of orchard process, not a unit of independence (what Kant called a "thing in itself"). There isn't any thing/object called an apple. What is it, then? Well, it's not an "it" either and just that’s the problem.

Language greatly complicates the saying of this since it keeps populating the world with me's and you's and things and apples. However, let's do our best to communicate in spite of this zoo of illusion. Everything works if we keep remembering who's the dog (us) and who's the tail (language).

Apple trees aren't to apples what shoemakers are to shoes. Why not? In the first place, apples aren't premeditated. The orchard certainly doesn't "stop and think" before it "makes" the apple. We love to think nature is a macrocosm of our own self conscious existence, but the ancient Chinese word for nature, TZU-JAN, means (approximately) "that which is so of itself", and the of itself soing of that which is so of itself is nonstop spontaneity.

But if there isn't an "apple maker" (and there isn't), then what's manufacturing those apples? Nothing, since that's not what's happening. The "make it happen" machoism is foolishly simplistic.

And for that matter, let's dump "causality" while we're at it, since all that cause and effect business is a just mind game Homo sapiens play. Spontaneity is acausal. Nothing is pushing or pulling anything else around. Force, causality, will -- big deal. That's not what's happening.

Look, when a crystal precipitates out of a solution, nothing's "behind the scenes" causing effects. The crystal is "all of a piece" with the solution. It's a "form event", if you like, evoked by an arbitrary perception system. Same thing is true for the apple. Hey, no orchard, no apple.

And no nature . . . no us.
**********************************************************************
wcproteus

And what does spirituality mean anyway?

Edit: I wonder if you know that Snow White is a Fairy Tale, not a historical account.

:shrug:

Yes, something like that, and we don't have to settle for the spin.

proteus

ps: MissMarple is my favoriate detective!

I loved the books, I read them when quite young in the 60's. I remember being appalled with Margaret Rutherford's characterization in the old movies that used to be shown sometimes on television. Lillian Gish wasn't a favorite, either. I haven't seen the newest one. :)

Did you know that Joan Hickson was a character one of Margaret Rutherford's movies? She was much younger, of course, but you could recognize her. I've seen parts of this latest one, but she didn't work for me.

Also, the apple thing is more a fun/poetic way of talking about what could be called "consensus reality", which is what life looks like when we look at it through our language glasses. What we see then are thought/forms (to say it very generally), but thought forms can be left. A thought form reality is basically what the orient means by maya.

Things like this are rarely talked about (at least in our traditions), but they can be very freeing.

cheers, proteus

This is like reading one of Boojatta's threads.

He was obnoxious and everything but jeez, that's a little harsh.

He ascended to a higher astronaut plane where metaphors don't have to make any sense and you can use big words that nobody understands.

Edit: Oops, responded to the wrong post. I guess I have to stay in this plane until I reach a more perfect posting skill.

She said there are religious atheists!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't know, I kind of like it here on Earth, especially since I think I may get accepted in Vidar's Exclusive Ignore Club for Unreasonable Atheists.

Prey for me.

I'm sure it will be soon.

I mean, if people are throwing things at me...

see the (apple-not apple) without making the label (apple-not apple), without thinking about making the label of (apple-not apple).
smell the (apple -not apple) make no association to (apple-not apple) tree.
bite the (apple-not apple) taste without judgement (sweet, tart, rotted).

not quite koan.

works for me!

OK, that's a petty objection - but I wish you'd tell us what this has to do with spirituality, or Snow White for that matter. What you seem to have here is some thoughts about a specific meaning of the word 'make'. And I can't get anything very useful out of them.

I disagree with your idea that cause and effect is something that just humans concern themselves with - other animals can learn to solve puzzles based on cause and effect.

No, the "wild" is the only place they can grow. By orchard I simply mean something totally natural and that apples is a sense "are" the orchard, just like the branches and leaves. Mostly its just a name thing. Once language gets into the games and starts classifying things, we tend to forget that the "things" are arbitrary language creations. The orchard/apple is a unity from which language abstract the "thing apple".

The spirituality connection is harder to talk about. I see this "through a glass darkly". It's something like the more the realize nature is an n-dimensional unity from with we abstract things (and and and identities, is the more our sense of self changes. The separate self business fades.

The cause and effect thing is also very slippery for me. Of course I'm not totally discounting it, it's just that nature natures spontaneously and that's more mysterious than cause and effect.

Lastly, please remember that these are gropings and glimpses for me. No dogma or pronouncements. That's why I wrote about it more in a kind of poetry form. Grouping shouldn't be against the law.

cheers, proteus.

I don't know why that had so many typos. Sorry.

proteus

Just click on "edit" in the lower right corner of your post.

If by 'n' you mean '11'.

(Due to some abiguity, 3,4,10 and 24 are also acceptable)

(and I don't mean because of typos).

'By orchard I simply mean something totally natural'

OK, should I just read 'tree' all the way through, then? Because an orchard is specifically man-made, and you do want to seem to contrast things that happen as a result from an act of will with those in 'nature'.

'The orchard/apple is a unity from which language abstracts the "thing apple".'

No, not really - because a tree can produce many apples, which can then mature into other trees in different places, which then co-exist with the original tree (or orchard, if you're still talking about that). There really is a good case for regarding an apple as a separate concept from a tree, or orchard. It is not just 'arbitrary language creations'. It is not a 'unity'.

'It's something like the more we realize nature is an n-dimensional unity from which we abstract things (and identities), the more our sense of self changes. The separate self business fades.'

This is the first time you've talked about dimensions, and I don't see what you're saying about them. What's the connection with whether we can separate objects from a whole?

OK, the question of if we can be regarded as individuals, with or without free will, and whether those individuals are entities beyond the organisation of simple matter, is a very complicated one. But if you think our 'separate self' is fading, then why the emphasis on the production of an apple from an orchard/tree being so different to a shoe from a shoemaker? Doesn't a universe in which people are just another part of a unity mean the events are fundamentally alike?

In your first post, you talk about nature being 'spontaneous'. If you mean 'without a guiding will', that is a valid viewpoint. But you also say there's no 'force' or 'causality' in nature. Using the normal definitions of these, there is - and you can tie them precisely into the process whereby an apple grows. There are forces between the molecules in a tree, and the interactions of the molecules cause an apple to grow on it, in a predictable fashion.

A lot of your original argument seems a bit of a strawman - I don't think I've ever heard anyone call an orchard an 'apple machine', or talk about 'making' or 'manufacturing' apples. 'Grow' and 'produce' are the typical words I hear, and the implications for whether there is a guiding will are quite different. You say 'We love to think nature is a macrocosm of our own self conscious existence'; well, some people do, but not many - few people actually think nature is a conscious entity.

"The thing that makes philosophers respected is not actually their profundity, but simply their obscurity. They translate vague and dubious ideas into high-sounding words, and their dupes assume, as they assume themselves, that the resulting obfuscation is a contribution to knowledge."

You have explained Mr. Epler much better than he explains himself.

Firstly, my opinion on the apple stuff:

'Apple' is a word. This means it is used to transfer information. Of course this word is not a thing, it is merely something that by common usage has come to refer to a set of information.

Next, causality:

"Nothing is pushing or pulling anything else around"

Odd you say that, very odd, because it looks mightily to me like there is an action reaction mass*accelartion pair when I watch two things collide, and referring to the thermodynamic arrow of time.

I should like to know, very much, how you mean that interactions of the electromagnetic fields did not "cause" a force to be produced.

http://www.esu.edu/~milewski/intro_biol_two/lab_4_seeds_fruits/Seeds_and_Fruits.html

Seeds and Fruits

In a previous exercise, you observed the flower and its many parts. You were also introduced to the events leading up to the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. The resulting cell was called the zygote. This develops into the embryonic plant. Plants also produce a second sperm cell that fuses with the polar nuclei to form a triploid endosperm. The endosperm accumulates much storage material that is used for the development of the embryonic plant. The embryo and the endosperm reside in the ovule and together these constitute a SEED. Of course the seed is contained within the ovary of the carpel; the gynoecium will develop to form a FRUIT surrounding the seeds. Today you will study the seed and fruit of the flowering plants

I. Seed Formation

The ENDOSPERM starts developing immediately after double fertilization, forming a parenchymatous tissue between the nucellus tissues of the ovule and the young embryo. The endosperm divides actively during early development of the seed; later it may store considerable amounts of food material, or it may transfer the food materials to the cotyledon(s) of the embryo and disappear completely. Meanwhile, the zygote undergoes a regular sequence of divisions to form an EMBRYO organized into a central hypocotyl with ROOT APEX (radicle) at one end and one or two COTYLEDONS and small SHOOT APEX at the other. The integument(s) of the ovule become(s) modified to form the SEED COAT. The entire structure--seed coat, endosperm if still present, and embryo--constitutes the SEED and is shed from the parent plant at maturity. The seed usually can withstand quite adverse conditions and remain dormant for considerable periods of time. It serves to disseminate the species.

II. Fruit

The angiosperm seed is derived from the ovule which occurs within the ovary of the carpel. Changes in the ovary wall occur simultaneously with the maturation of the seed, giving rise to a FRUIT. Fruits are of various types--fleshy or dry and, when dry, dehiscent or indehiscent. In some species it may be the fruit with its contained seed(s) which is shed and distributed rather than the seed itself.


THREE FRUIT CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES

ORIGINS
Simple fruit - formed from a single pistil (lily, apple, cucumber)
Aggregate fruit - formed from a cluster of separate pistils borne in a single flower (raspberry)
Multiple fruit - formed from the pistils of several to many flowers consolidated with other floral or inflorescence parts (pineapple, fig)

COMPOSITION
True fruit - composed of only the ripened ovary, with its contained seeds (lily)
Accessory fruit - composed of the ripened ovary with other additional parts, such as receptacle, bracts, portions of perianth, etc. (apple, cucumber, fig)

DESCRIPTIONS
Fleshy Fruits
Berry - few to many seeded, fruit coat soft and fleshy throughout (grape, banana)
Hesperidium - berry with tough rind (orange, grapefruit)
Pepo - thick-skinned berry, accessory (squash, cucumber)
Drupe - usually 1-seeded, fruit coat with fleshy outer and inner stony layers (peach, plum, olive, raspberry, almond)
Pome - fleshy accessory fruit with cartilaginous core (apple, pear)
Dry Fruits
Indehiscent Fruits
Achene - 1-seeded, fruit coat free from seed coat (buttercup, sunflower)
Caryopsis (grain) - 1-seeded, fruit coat fused with seed coat (corn, wheat)
Samara - 1-seeded, fruit with winglike outgrowth (ash)
Nut - 1-seeded, thick hard wall, partially or completely surrounded by cup or husk (oak, hickory, walnut)
Dehiscent fruits
Follicle - single carpel splitting along one side only (milkweed, magnolia)
Legume - single carpel splitting along both sides (bean)
Capsule - compound pistil, splitting lengthwise or by pores (lily, iris, poppy)

I'm going to save this.

wcproteus

It's about seeing connections - instead of seeing boundaries.

I esp. liked:

"We love to think nature is a macrocosm of our own self conscious existence, but the ancient Chinese word for nature, TZU-JAN, means (approximately) "that which is so of itself", and the of itself soing of that which is so of itself is nonstop spontaneity."


I noticed this quote today (He= "the painter"):

'He must stay as close as possible to his own inner world if he wants to transcend the limitations his reason is always trying to impose on him.'"

-Picasso

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1025.html

___________________________

Some people seem to embrace the limitations, the boundaries - and some of us don't.

I loved the Picasso quote. When I write is this mode, my writing is kind of a synthesis of philosophy and poetry. It's saying things you can only see out the the corner of your eye and it relies much on metaphor and images. I've discovered (long before this submission)this kind of writing is literally threatening for some people and sometimes they respond with fearful hostility. I may share some similar pieces, but I'm not sure I want to babysit the attackers. We shall see.

In any case, thank you for your sincere response and the quote.

proteus.

I really hope you're not talking about us.

A quick look around this forum will reveal about a dozen or so cowardly atheists.

The same atheists who, even though they are the lone atheist and overwhelmingly outnumbered, don't hesitate for a second to take on an entire thread of believers in GD when they feel we're being maligned or misrepresented.

The same atheists who, even though they, because of their atheism, have lost jobs, were disowned and/or isolated by family members, were threatened, physically attacked, informed by a US president that they weren't "real" citizens, and are have been labeled the least trusted of all minority groups in the country, STILL remain compassionately committed to the protection of The Constitution and Bill of Rights which protects ALL citizens.


I wouldn't suggest using the word "threatened" when referring to how free thinkers feel about your post.


We're threatened by the dominionists who have hijacked our government and intend to turn it into a theocracy, not fluffy vanity pieces by anonymous internet posters.

Mr. Epler is by no means anonymous. His writing has been published on Truthout, Buzzflash, and SmirkingChimp. While his political writings are similarly inarticulate, they are far less disagreeable because they espouse a point of view (I think) common to most Democrats.

His excuse about others being threatened is merely a rhetorical gambit to shift the attention to those who don’t buy into his hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. It implies that he is so profoundly enlightened that he threatens to shake the foundations of belief/disbelief of all who disagree. He flatters himself.

It appears that Mr. Epler is only here to receive praise from his acolytes, not to debate issues. And just like the Lotus Feet Swami, there will be no exchange of ideas. This is one-way communication—from “on high” to “down below”. And if you object to being “down below” you must be threatened by the message. What other explanation could there be?

It doesn’t seem to register on Mr. Epler that some of us find his metaphors inexplicable, his language indefinable, and his writing style undecipherable. (Of course this is because we are insufficiently enlightened, not because he is a pompous hack.)

Sounds like he follows the Woo Woo Credo

But Google is my friend so I looked it up.

http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm

And I posted the link for those who are too lazy to google. (Sometimes that includes me.)

Perhaps it will help people avoid the pitfalls of being an internet woo woo, but I doubt it.

Thanks for the tip.

Edit: for the purposes of this forum #33 should read:
One Word: "Spirituality"

beam me up scottie,

If you mean was I talking about atheists, absolutely not! Most of my colleagues and friends are atheists (scientifically grounded ones, not just anti-theists), so I have ZERO complaints about atheists -- whose views I increasingly share.

I think the trouble is my style of writing in the Apple piece (I can, and usually do write differently) just didn't work for some people. I think of it as "groping" and its a kind of mixture of poetry and philosophy. What I don't understand is the degree of hostility it evoked in a couple of people. The piece wasn't be critiqued, it was simply trashed and it felt very personal. I've never had to deal with that kind of ugliness before in my writing (rejection or disagreement, yes, but never such raw hostility), and I honestly don't know how to deal with it. Anyway I certainly wasn't generalizing about the DU site, which has mostly responded affirmingly and supportively to my submissions, which is why I put the Apple piece (really a kind of "experiment") out there in the first place.

Part of what I was groping for was the view that science/philosophy doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with spirituality. I know spirituality is a difficult word to define (including for me), but I think it roughly means evolving beyond a conditioned sense of self (i.e., the one programmed into us by our families of origin and western civilization). I also don't see institutionalized religion as being in any was necessary for this transformation.

Also, I totally agree that first things first now is dealing with the Bush/Republican greed heads and Evangelicals politically. I have been fighting this good fight with my writing (and otherwise) for the last couple of years. Even more specifically, we need to get the vote out this November. But in a more long term, big picture sense, my hope is that the more we see these scum in a big picture psychological/philosophical perspective, is the more we can change the context which grows such terrible human beings. Eventually, we HAVE to know what's going on "behind the scenes" with such people, or they will just keep coming at us. So for me, psychological/philosophical/spiritual pieces are part of this good fight -- albeit more long term. At least this is my hope when I write such things (most of my writing is very different and political).

Lastly, even for those who have been whacking my contributions to DU (interestingly, usually, the same 2 or 3 people), let's all hang together this November. I could put up with 100 zingers if someone could come up with a realistic strategy for what we do when we KNOW certain elections have been stolen. This time we can't just be passive about it and say, oh well. This time we have to go on the offense and undo that theft. How? Jesus, I don't know, but I DO know (1.) some elections will be stolen and (2.) we can't let them get away with it (whatever that means).

So, let's forget the zingers and misunderstandings and get our act together as an extended family of liberals.

Again, atheists are great,

proteus

But I loathe being patronized almost as much as I loathe people who pretend skeptics are too stupid to understand psychobabble.



When you agreed with a resident athIEst and claimed the people who were "whacking" your contributions were "threatened" by your writing and you didn't want to "babysit" them, you threw down the gauntlet.

I picked it up.

beam me up scottie,

You and I had an exchange earlier that was thoughtful and positive.

I'd like to keep that connection with you so I'm going to add a few personal remarks.

You've got to understand that I'm a flesh and blood human, doing his thing, just like everyone else and when I'm subjected to bogglingly hostile posts (generally by the same 2 or 3 individuals!), it offends me (how could it not), but mostly, to say it straight out, it hurts my feelings. Believe me, it doesn't feel good when you're being slimed over and over again.

The hostility in these posts is so personal and repetitive that I honestly don't know how to deal with it, hence my speculation about being threatened. That may have been totally off the mark, but SOMETHING very weird is going on. This isn't simple disagreement. Now this may be not uncommon on DU, but I've never had to deal with such amazing unfriendliness before.

And about free thinkers, bring em on. What could be better? And in point of fact, I've had a lot of response from DU free thinkers (especially in the SOS to spiritual adults thread) and I benefited and learned from it. But none of it was egregiously hostile. If they disagreed with a certain point, they simply said so and explained why -- I and tried to respond in kind.

Your theocracy worries (and oligarchy worries) I absolutely share, but I hope you see now that my non political submissions are also trying to deal with those same dangers on a different level. Most of my writing and activities deals with it directly and politically.

The 2 or 3 individuals who keep trashing my contributions and sharings, keep implying I'm some kind of self styled guru. Nothing could be more absurd. I don't believe in gurus (western or eastern). I believe in trusting your own feelings and intuitions above all else. To me that's a definition of an adult, so my statements are not "pronouncements", they're simply a groping attempt to communicate to my fellow human beings from the feelings and intuitions of this life. This, of course, is a 2 way street and I try to stay open to good faith communications to me.

I'm still keeping the faith that that is possible, e.g., this post.

proteus

IMModerate calls it The Arena.

We will agree and disagree about many things and most try to do so without attacking others.

But let's get real, when atheists actually post what they think, it's going to offend.

I will not attack or purposely try to offend you, but I will post what I think when asked or challenged.

I expect you to do the same and you have that right.

I respect atheism. Period. That's not being patronizing or rejecting. I was trying to be friendly.

Let me put that differently:

I respect atheism. Period. That's not being patronizing or rejecting. AND I was trying to be friendly.

I added the "and" because the attempt to be cordial had NOTHING to do with my reasons for accepting atheism. These reasons are my own and are mostly grounded in math and science and the antics of institutional religion.

The attempt to be friendly was made in good faith. As have been all of my submissions. Dear God, I'm not making any money submitting these pieces! They are simply shorings and invitations for dialog. Most of the response to my pieces has been open and stimulating (from which I have learned much), but the other side of that coin (albeit small) has been astoundingly toxic and there's several light years between an adult disagreement and being slimed. My "threatening" speculation (probably wrong) was simply my attempt to make some sense of the repetitious hostility from a couple of people (I wasn't thinking of you at all).

I'm sure this is all teaching me something, but the price is so high that I'm not sure it's worth the pain. I'm getting closer and closer to who needs this.

I suspect I share at least some of your reservations about people who condemn atheism, since it's almost always the pot calling the kettle black.

Many folks have asked me to "define my terms" wrt some of my submissions. Sort of the Socratic Method at work. Maybe the same thing needs to be done with atheism.

Taking some simple philosophical concepts on the nature of perception and making it obtuse does not spiritual make.

Fearful hostility? Give me a fucking break.

I enjoyed this post wcproteus.

Simple, clear and, in lots of ways, subversive! The dogma of ordinary causality becomes "quaint" in a world of real things and beings that is {the world) "unto itself". It's a habit of our human minds to assign causality to whatever we assume or notice occuring just prior to an event in question. Useful to some degree for assigning poetic or moral meanings to our experience through language, but not mistaken for anything other than a linguistic construct.

Even the old doctrine of "karma" becomes at best a useful fiction; at worst a kind of linear constriction to our awareness of the realworld.

Looking forward to more of them apples!
:thumbsup:
J

Thanks,

I think much of the problem is that we extrapolate from (often unexamined) human experience to nature at large instead of visa versa. Maybe self control (that dualism) makes some slight sense for us, but nature is not "self controlling" (with all the implicit causality of the controller and the controlee), nature is spontaneous -- the being myselfing of nature. Relatedly, Alan Watts put it like this, "everything is happening altogether everywhere at once".

I too am suspicious of "karma", for basically the same reasons. For all its hoariness, it's really a precursor of causality which is ultimately simplistic and too time dominated.

And thanks for your straightforward response. A few such responses will keep me around. I confess I have been boggled by the amount of free floating, raw hostility on this site. Jeez, disagreements are one thing (and power to them), but all this venom and name calling are bewildering to me.

Anyway, enough of that. I actually have several similar pieces to the Apple one (I'm toying with trying to collect them into a small book) which I may send on later. Maybe I can do a piece impersonal viciousness. I confess it does genuinely interest me (aside of being disorientating and hurtful).

I speculated for awhile that these writers (usually the same 2 or 3) might threatened by such writing in the Apple piece (which is a kind of mixture of philosophy and poetry), but now I don't know if that's true. The truth is I really don't know. I've never experienced such a thing before, so for now it's still something I'm trying to puzzle out. Food for thought, let's say.

By the way, I liked your phrase "linguistic construct". I increasingly believe that's the essence meaning of maya, the biggie linguistic construct. It's amazing how slavishly we fit our experience of the given to the Procrustean Bed of language.

Well, enough already.

I hope you have a great day,

proteus