Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Sarbajit Roy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

On 10/3/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> Unfortunately, I haven't read THAT text either!  (};-]}
>
> Thanks, Sarbajit,
>
> Nick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:18 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Dear Nick
>
> There's no illusion of separateness.
> "You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up "I"ness to
> progress further.
>
> I'll clarify this with a Western text:
> "WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".
>
> Sarbajit


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Nicholas Thompson]

Unfortunately, I haven't read THAT text either!  (};-]}  

Thanks, Sarbajit,

Nick 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Dear Nick

There's no illusion of separateness.
"You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up "I"ness to
progress further.

I'll clarify this with a Western text:
"WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".

Sarbajit


On 10/3/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> Sarbajit,
>
> I stand corrected.  I had always thought that the issue was the illusion
of
> separateness.   So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
> for the gander [i.e., "you").  If I am not separate from you, surely 
> you are not separate from me.
>
> But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy 
> right now to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things 
> to me when you have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the correction.
>
> Nick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On 
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Oh dear me,
>
> Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too 
> advanced. I thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who
..becomes 
> free from I or my ... "
>
> "You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.
>
> Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic 
> of which the Gita is a tiny part)
>
> http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html
>
> The entire Gita is reduced to this para
>
> "Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in 
> performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To 
> oppress others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger 
> sin. All those, whom you claim to be your relatives are none but 
> individual souls, unrelated to you, on way to their ultimate 
> destination of uniting with the supreme Lord, the Brahman. Pick up 
> your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to you. Do not think of 
> the consequences."
>
> Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
>> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of 
>> YOU-ness.  As long as you are detached from him,  you cannot propound 
>> anything .. etc., right?  You will never attain peace as long as 
>> you see Russ as a YOU.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> N
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On 
>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
>> To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
>> Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>>
>> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As 
>> long as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound 
>> anything valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>>
>> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>>
>> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the 
>> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the 
>> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer 
>> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person 
>> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it 
>>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is 
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want 
>>> it so badly.
>>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>>> I must stay detached.
>>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby 
>>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may 
>>>

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Sarbajit Roy]

Dear Nick

There's no illusion of separateness.
"You" ARE separate from "me". The Gita only asks you to give up
"I"ness to progress further.

I'll clarify this with a Western text:
"WE are the Borg. WE will assimilate YOU. (Resistance is futile)".

Sarbajit


On 10/3/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> Sarbajit,
>
> I stand corrected.  I had always thought that the issue was the illusion of
> separateness.   So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
> for the gander [i.e., "you").  If I am not separate from you, surely you
> are
> not separate from me.
>
> But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy right now
> to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things to me when you
> have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the correction.
>
> Nick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Oh dear me,
>
> Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too advanced. I
> thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who ..becomes 
> free from I or my ... "
>
> "You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.
>
> Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic of
> which the Gita is a tiny part)
>
> http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html
>
> The entire Gita is reduced to this para
>
> "Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in
> performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To oppress
> others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger sin. All those,
> whom you claim to be your relatives are none but individual souls,
> unrelated
> to you, on way to their ultimate destination of uniting with the supreme
> Lord, the Brahman. Pick up your weapon and fight that is what is ordained
> to
> you. Do not think of the consequences."
>
> Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
>> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
>> YOU-ness.  As long as you are detached from him,  you cannot propound
>> anything .. etc., right?  You will never attain peace as long as
>> you see Russ as a YOU.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> N
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
>> To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>> Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>>
>> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As long
>> as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything
>> valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>>
>> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>>
>> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
>> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
>> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer
>> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person
>> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
>>> so badly.
>>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>>> I must stay detached.
>>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby
>>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
>>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
>>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
>>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>>> *_*
>>> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
>>> *  California State University, L

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Nicholas Thompson]

Sarbajit, 

I stand corrected.  I had always thought that the issue was the illusion of
separateness.   So what is sauce for the goose (i.e., "me") would be sauce
for the gander [i.e., "you").  If I am not separate from you, surely you are
not separate from me.  

But I had best stay out of this one, because I haven't the energy right now
to read the eastern texts, and asking you to explain things to me when you
have already made clarifying texts available is unfair.  

Anyway, thanks for the correction. 

Nick 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Oh dear me,

Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too advanced. I
thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who ..becomes 
free from I or my ... "

"You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.

Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic of
which the Gita is a tiny part)

http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html

The entire Gita is reduced to this para

"Krishna said, "Arjuna, may it be known to you that man's duty lies in
performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To oppress
others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger sin. All those,
whom you claim to be your relatives are none but individual souls, unrelated
to you, on way to their ultimate destination of uniting with the supreme
Lord, the Brahman. Pick up your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to
you. Do not think of the consequences."

Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of 
> YOU-ness.  As long as you are detached from him,  you cannot propound 
> anything .. etc., right?  You will never attain peace as long as 
> you see Russ as a YOU.
>
> Right?
>
> N
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On 
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
> To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As long 
> as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything 
> valid beyond the delusion of your "self".
>
> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>
> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the 
> feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the 
> super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer 
> deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end of one's life, a person 
> becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it 
>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is 
>> again.
>>
>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it 
>> so badly.
>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>> I must stay detached.
>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby 
>> X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be 
>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it 
>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But 
>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>
>>
>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>> *_*
>> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
>> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>>
>> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>>   CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>> *_*
>>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at 
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listse

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Steve Smith]

Are you pulling my leg?

I loved the (oversimplified/pop) description of (Westernized?) Buddhism 
stating that "suffering is the consequence avoiding pain" and that "life 
is suffering" (apologies to all the Buddhist/Hindu scholars and/or 
practicioners and/or culturally embeddeds for my limited understanding 
of this).


My wife calls me a Calvinist and thinks I *love suffering* and might 
even suggest I am *attached to suffering* when in fact, from inside my 
head/heart/chakras, I experience something that feels more like 
non-attachment to the pain which she is imagining I am enjoying (or the 
suffering I'm enjoying avoiding the pain?).


I have to admit that my sense of "morbid fascination" might just be an 
attachment to a certain kind of suffering... hmmm   I *love* the 
bite of this red-chile infused lager I'm sipping... she may have a point...



Attachment is only a problem if when detachment sets in it causes 
suffering, e.g. my leg

Robert C

On 10/2/12 11:34 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago.  Oops

Thanks a lot, Steve...

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith > wrote:


It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a
message like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea
that I might send without making the attachment I possibly
intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they
can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted
it.  I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of
non-attachment I think.

I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did
it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here
it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass.
I want it so badly.
Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X
comes to pass. I must stay detached.
Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process
whereby Xcomes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I
participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much
whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy.
If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X
comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

/-- Russ Abbott/
/_/
/  Professor, Computer Science/
/  California State University, Los Angeles/

/My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
ssrn.com/abstract=1977688 /
/  Google voice: 747-/999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

/vita: /sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
/_/




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org 
d...@parrot-farm.net 
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Steve Smith]

Excellent wordplay young man... and also... a great diversionment from 
the seriousness of the moment!

Our economic system could use some preferential detachment.
-Arlo James Barnes



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Arlo Barnes]

Our economic system could use some preferential detachment.
-Arlo James Barnes

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Attachment is only a problem if when detachment sets in it causes 
suffering, e.g. my leg

Robert C

On 10/2/12 11:34 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago.  Oops

Thanks a lot, Steve...

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith > wrote:


It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message
like this:

My dog is the epitome of attachment.
My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea
that I might send without making the attachment I possibly
intended when I used the word.
My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they
can't be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted
it.  I do this from time to time, it is my simulation of
non-attachment I think.

I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did
it get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here
it is again.

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I
want it so badly.
Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes
to pass. I must stay detached.
Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process
whereby Xcomes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I
participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much
whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy.
If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes
to pass I still have my laundry to do.

/-- Russ Abbott/
/_/
/  Professor, Computer Science/
/  California State University, Los Angeles/

/My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
ssrn.com/abstract=1977688 /
/  Google voice: 747-/999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

/vita: /sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
/_/




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org 
d...@parrot-farm.net 
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Douglas Roberts]

I detached myself from this thread at least 5 messages ago.  Oops

Thanks a lot, Steve...

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like
> this:
>
> My dog is the epitome of attachment.
> My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
> Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
> My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I might
> send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I used the word.
> My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't be
> bothered with all this talk.
>
>  But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it.  I do
> this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.
>
> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get
> lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is again.
>
>  Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so
> badly.
>  Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I
> must stay detached.
>  Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes
> to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully
> engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may
> feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes
> to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>
>
>  *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> *  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
>  *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
> *
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>   CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
> *_*
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Steve Smith]

It did come through, it's succinctness caused me to type a message like 
this:


   My dog is the epitome of attachment.
   My cat is the epitome of non-attachment.
   Some cats and dogs seem studied in detachment.
   My mailtool (Thunderbird) seems fairly attached to the idea that I
   might send without making the attachment I possibly intended when I
   used the word.
   My cat was recently confiscated by the coyotes, I think they can't
   be bothered with all this talk.

But then I thought it might be perceived as "flip" and deleted it.  I do 
this from time to time, it is my simulation of non-attachment I think.
I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it 
get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is 
again.


Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want
it so badly.
Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to
pass. I must stay detached.
Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process
whereby Xcomes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I
participate I may be fully engaged. I may care very much whether X
comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I
may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have
my laundry to do.

/-- Russ Abbott/
/_/
/  Professor, Computer Science/
/  California State University, Los Angeles/

/  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: 
ssrn.com/abstract=1977688 /

/  Google voice: 747-/999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ 

/  vita: /sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ 


CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
/_/




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Sarbajit Roy]

Oh dear me,

Perhaps the simple online version of the Gita I chose was too
advanced. I thought it was clear from 2.71 that it refers to "ONE who
..becomes  free from I or my ... "

"You"ness on the other hand is perfectly OK.

Lets see an online Kiddies version of the Mahabharatha (the long epic
of which the Gita is a tiny part)

http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Stories/mahabharat11.html

The entire Gita is reduced to this para

"Krishna said, “Arjuna, may it be known to you that man’s duty lies in
performing the duty while the results should be left to God. To
oppress others is a sin but to tolerate oppression is a far bigger
sin. All those, whom you claim to be your relatives are none but
individual souls, unrelated to you, on way to their ultimate
destination of uniting with the supreme Lord, the Brahman. Pick up
your weapon and fight that is what is ordained to you. Do not think of
the consequences.”

Note the delicious "you"ness which permeates the Gita

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
> YOU-ness.  As long as you are detached from him,  you cannot propound
> anything .. etc., right?  You will never attain peace as long as you
> see
> Russ as a YOU.
>
> Right?
>
> N
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
> To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment
>
> Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As long as
> "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything valid
> beyond the delusion of your "self".
>
> http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html
>
> "One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
> feeling
> of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the
> super-conscious
> state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this
> state, even at the end of one's life, a person becomes one with the
> Absolute. (2.72)."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it
>> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is
>> again.
>>
>> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it
>> so badly.
>> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass.
>> I must stay detached.
>> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X
>> comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be
>> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it
>> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But
>> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>>
>>
>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>> *_*
>> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
>> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>>
>> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:
>> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
>> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>>   CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
>> *_*
>>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Nicholas Thompson]

But surely, Sarbarjit, your post is contaminated with the illusion of
YOU-ness.  As long as you are detached from him,  you cannot propound
anything .. etc., right?  You will never attain peace as long as you see
Russ as a YOU.  

Right? 

N

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:13 AM
To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] attachment

Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As long as
"you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything valid
beyond the delusion of your "self".

http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html

"One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the feeling
of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71) O Arjuna, this is the super-conscious
state of mind. Attaining this state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this
state, even at the end of one's life, a person becomes one with the
Absolute. (2.72)."

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it 
> get lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is again.
>
> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it 
> so badly.
> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. 
> I must stay detached.
> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X 
> comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be 
> fully engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it 
> does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But 
> whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: 
> ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>   CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
> *_*
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[glen]

Excellent!  Thanks, Eric.  Word games like these seem to me to be
semantic loops that can only be resolved by using a larger language.
There is no difference between "detachment" and "non-attachment" and
anyone who claims there is is playing games.  That's OK.  Games are fun.

But rather than go round and round trying to out-profound each other, I
need new words.  Yours are a bit long, but they might work. ;-)

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 10/02/2012 06:58 AM:
> Following his suggestion, it seems that you are using 'attachment' and
> 'detachment' as short hands for caring-about-maintaining-your-attachment and
> caring-about-dissolving-your-attachment. Both are similar, in your view,
> because they involve putting forth effort to regulate one's level of
> attachment. The third option, which you are
> calling 'non-attachment' is to not care / not put forth effort. This could
> entail either being-neutral-to-your-level-of-attachment
> or the even more extreme being-oblivious-to-your-level-of-attachment.
> The former (neutral) option would allow for things like bemused
> self-observations ('How odd that I seem to care about this cup. Oh well.'),
> while the later (oblivious) option would not. Am I understanding you 
> correctly?


-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Your email got through, and Carl had a great comparison with the notion of
'coolness'. 


Following his suggestion, it seems that you are using 'attachment' and
'detachment' as short hands for caring-about-maintaining-your-attachment and
caring-about-dissolving-your-attachment. Both are similar, in your view,
because they involve putting forth effort to regulate one's level of
attachment. The third option, which you are
calling 'non-attachment' is to not care / not put forth effort. This could
entail either being-neutral-to-your-level-of-attachment
or the even more extreme being-oblivious-to-your-level-of-attachment.
The former (neutral) option would allow for things like bemused
self-observations ('How odd that I seem to care about this cup. Oh well.'),
while the later (oblivious) option would not. Am I understanding you correctly?


Eric



On Tue, Oct  2, 2012 01:52 AM, Russ Abbott
 wrote:
>
>>
>I liked my
>post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get lost? I don't see
>it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is
>again.>
>
>ms,sans-serif">
>
>
>
>>Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X
>comes to pass. I want it so badly.
>
>>
>>
>Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must
stay detached.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes
to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully engaged. I
may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy.
If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still
have my laundry to do.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>-- Russ Abbott
>_>  Professor, Computer Science
>  California State University, Los Angeles
>>
>
>>  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy:

>  Google voice: 747-999-5105
>>  Google+: 
>
>>  vita:  
>
>>   and the courses I teach
>_ 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>





Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] attachment

[Sarbajit Roy]

Your post is contaminated/deluded by the repeated use of  "I". As long
as "you" are "attached" to your "I"-ness you cannot propound anything
valid beyond the delusion of your "self".

http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/chapter2.html

"One who abandons all desires, and becomes free from longing and the
feeling of 'I' and 'my', attains peace. (2.71)
O Arjuna, this is the super-conscious state of mind. Attaining this
state, one is no longer deluded. Gaining this state, even at the end
of one's life, a person becomes one with the Absolute. (2.72)."

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
> I liked my post on attachment. (Perhaps I'm attached to it.) Did it get
> lost? I don't see it in any of the follow-up posts.  Here it is again.
>
> Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so
> badly.
> Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I
> must stay detached.
> Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X
> comes
> to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may be fully
> engaged. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may
> feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X
> comes
> to pass I still have my laundry to do.
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>   CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
> *_*
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Attachment in FRIAM post

[Owen Densmore]

Yup, I got it in the email you sent, works great.  Interesting stunt,  
and certainly reinforces the "Browser is the Computer" meme!


The code was quite useful, especially to me being a bit of a  
javascript novice -- only used it a few times in depth.  The $()  
function stunt was very cool and made it look like a shell variable.   
I also like the appendLine - trace functions, when I don't have  
firebug to work with.  Works within closures which sometimes confuses  
firebug, at least on the Mac.


In-lining the css is also interesting: considered a no-no by the  
purists but likely to be very useful for html/javascript "scripts" ..  
letting us have a one-file solution.


I'm cc-ing Friam in case folks are interested in the details.

-- Owen


On Dec 31, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Dale Schumacher wrote:


Hi Owen,

I was wondering if the HTML/CSS/Javascript example I sent as an
attachment was passed through the FRAIM list.  Did you get it?  Was it
a sufficient example for the kind of problem you wanted to solve?  I
have more complex examples, if they would be useful.

Dale




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org