I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:58 am

"Did you donate energy while you were here? Or did you steal energy while you were here?

(steal from (or donate to) the cosmos)

That directly determines your karmic score.

Whether you are liked by entropy or considered a heavy load, a jerk, by it..."


So, donating to the cosmosis like bleeding value, & gaining incarnations toward immortality, or dissipating electromagnetism through inductive, transforming cracks, as reductive processes simplify the circuitry.

Such simplicity works counterclockwise between the orbs of cyclic magnetic polarity, if signified qualitative mechanistic views of the soul in the machine.


A more general , reductive way of putting it, is by the modern , interpretation based on neutral supposition - the required give and take are suppliant to any real cognition of what's involved .

Which is reductive to a quantified probable mode of Western type binary understanding, mostly missing from the East.
Last edited by Meno_ on Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:21 am

iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

iambiguous wrote:So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.

iambiguous wrote:Yet another god awful intellectual contraption which serves only to establish all the more the gap between how you don't "get" Buddhism and how I don't "get" it. For me, my interest revolves around closing the gap between what Buddhists think enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana mean "in their head", how they reconfigure this into the behaviors they choose in a world of conflicting goods...given how they then connect those behaviors here and now to the fate of "I" there and then.


Yet another god awful Biggy maxim; yes, we're all aware of what your interests revolve around--I don't think we could be more aware--I think if we all spontaneously achieved what Buddhists call enlightenment while reading this thread, it wouldn't increase the degree to which we are aware of what your interests revolve around--I think the next time you copy and paste what your interests revolve around, someone's gonna puke all over their keyboard because, frankly, we're sick of hearing it--it doesn't add any value to the conversation at this point--I for one recognize it as a sign that you got lost once again and can't think of anything more relevant to post.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?

Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.

I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.

My own reaction to things like this...

"My response to your latest question is simply that I can't guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won't backfire and cause more suffering, so it's a gamble. But it's one I feel confident in taking. <-- Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?"

...is that once you focus in on "this particular case", distinctions can be made between the actual existence of suffering, embedded in the actual facts of the situation, and the extent to which our own understanding of being "confident" in our own role, in our own particular value judgments is, instead, more the embodiment of how I construe "I" here [psychologically or otherwise] in the profoundly problematic nature of identity and personality...in the sheer number of genetic and memetic variables involved. Factors in which in so many crucial regards we have only so much understanding and control over.


Well, maybe that's all you're doing--just reacting. It certainly doesn't seem like you're actually responding. Most people respond by attempting to answer the question. The way you describe your "reaction" seems to be that my question simply triggers a thought in your mind, a thought about the distinction between the actual existence of [whatever] and our value judgements of [whatever], which needn't be an answer to the question I asked. It's like saying your reaction to my question is to comment on the way my eyes twitch when I ask it--which may interest you a ton, but to the rest of us who are actually looking for an answer, it's irritatingly frustrating. <-- This is why you illicit so much rancor with others. We are frustrated with the way you don't play by the rules of discourse. It's like trying to play catch with a person who won't catch the ball but prefers to comment instead on the way I throw the ball (and expects us to respond appropriately to his comments).

iambiguous wrote:gib: Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.

iambiguous: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.

gib: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.

iambiguous: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:25 am

Dan~ wrote:Christians don't have energy meditation.
Most don't, but then most Buddhists in the East don't participate much or even at all in meditative practices. Christians do have meditative and contemplative practices - mystics and saints (at least some of the latter) certainly used them, many monks, and many people who go in for the more transformative wing of christianity. Unfortunately Christianity in general has moved toward a focus on morals and belief (faith) rather than transformative practice, but those practices have always been part of the religion. And if you read the biographies of those who did focus on those practices they were definitely going through energy meditation experiences.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:55 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

iambiguous wrote:So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.

iambiguous wrote:Yet another god awful intellectual contraption which serves only to establish all the more the gap between how you don't "get" Buddhism and how I don't "get" it. For me, my interest revolves around closing the gap between what Buddhists think enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana mean "in their head", how they reconfigure this into the behaviors they choose in a world of conflicting goods...given how they then connect those behaviors here and now to the fate of "I" there and then.


Yet another god awful Biggy maxim; yes, we're all aware of what your interests revolve around--I don't think we could be more aware--I think if we all spontaneously achieved what Buddhists call enlightenment while reading this thread, it wouldn't increase the degree to which we are aware of what your interests revolve around--I think the next time you copy and paste what your interests revolve around, someone's gonna puke all over their keyboard because, frankly, we're sick of hearing it--it doesn't add any value to the conversation at this point--I for one recognize it as a sign that you got lost once again and can't think of anything more relevant to post.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?

Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.

I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.

My own reaction to things like this...

"My response to your latest question is simply that I can't guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won't backfire and cause more suffering, so it's a gamble. But it's one I feel confident in taking. <-- Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?"

...is that once you focus in on "this particular case", distinctions can be made between the actual existence of suffering, embedded in the actual facts of the situation, and the extent to which our own understanding of being "confident" in our own role, in our own particular value judgments is, instead, more the embodiment of how I construe "I" here [psychologically or otherwise] in the profoundly problematic nature of identity and personality...in the sheer number of genetic and memetic variables involved. Factors in which in so many crucial regards we have only so much understanding and control over.


Well, maybe that's all you're doing--just reacting. It certainly doesn't seem like you're actually responding. Most people respond by attempting to answer the question. The way you describe your "reaction" seems to be that my question simply triggers a thought in your mind, a thought about the distinction between the actual existence of [whatever] and our value judgements of [whatever], which needn't be an answer to the question I asked. It's like saying your reaction to my question is to comment on the way my eyes twitch when I ask it--which may interest you a ton, but to the rest of us who are actually looking for an answer, it's irritatingly frustrating. <-- This is why you illicit so much rancor with others. We are frustrated with the way you don't play by the rules of discourse. It's like trying to play catch with a person who won't catch the ball but prefers to comment instead on the way I throw the ball (and expects us to respond appropriately to his comments).

iambiguous wrote:gib: Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.

iambiguous: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.

gib: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.

iambiguous: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.


Gib said:

"Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now."

Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


And Gib's and Heidegger's meaning are fairly tight

This for my own clarification within the context of some of my own prior observations.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:07 am

Meno_ wrote:Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


I don't know how aligned Biggy's definition of "dasein" is with Heidegger's but I did probe him with this very question on one of my first serious encounters with him here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=190026

You'll have to wade through the first few posts to get to where we start talking about how "dasein" is defined in Biggy's philosophy, but it's one of the first topics we knock off in the discussion.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:52 pm

gib wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


I don't know how aligned Biggy's definition of "dasein" is with Heidegger's but I did probe him with this very question on one of my first serious encounters with him here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=190026

You'll have to wade through the first few posts to get to where we start talking about how "dasein" is defined in Biggy's philosophy, but it's one of the first topics we knock off in the discussion.



Has the divergence of meaning due to something else between Biggies definition , Heidegger's definition, and our ideas of any validation of such differences. that may allow some leverage into such shifts and concurrent . epoche or hold on same differences?

In other words, is there a definite relative sense by which the contexts within which such different definitions are held, have an objective , cumulative -functional sense , basically fracturing the sin and for it's self ?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:12 pm

iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


gib wrote: Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.


Yes, that's well put. But it's not only of control but of understanding. That's even more important to me because when it comes down to the factors/existential variables we can control, how do we determine the extent to which we truly do understand them. In other words, to the extent that we are in fact able to communicate them to others and then together we are able to demonstrate why and how all other rational [and for some virtuous] people are obligated to concur.

That is when I suggest the focus must shift to particular sets of circumstances that would involve the manner in which Buddhists have come to understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


gib wrote: How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


gib wrote: You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.


Note to others:

Yet another numbing intellectual contraption. This one about "contexts" themselves! One that completely avoids taking what he thinks they mean out into the world of human interactions in which a discussion can unfold relating to what we don't "get" about the main components of Buddhism.

Also, note the tone. He seems to get more genuinely pissed at me because I'm not following his course in regard to this exchange. And that, from my own frame of mind, is just another step down the road to him becoming a Stooge.

On the other hand, I do love polemics. Still, it's when the line is crossed that matters here. Less and less it's about the points I make and more and more about making me the point instead. Stay tuned.

gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


iambiguous wrote:My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


gib wrote: Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?


How then does this question pertain to the manner in which Buddhists, like all the rest of us, come to embody particular answers embedded in moral and political value judgments relating to human interactions revolving around such conflicting goods as abortion or capital punishment?

That's what I want to focus on given the arguments I make in my signature threads. What you want to focus on however is, here and now, considerably more obscure to me.

For example:

gib wrote: Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.


But: The part about abortion and capital punishment is now gone. And the part that is of interest to me...comparing and contrasting the components of religion with the components of my own moral philosophy with the components of yours...as they are applicable existential to conflicting goods out in the world that we live in is, in turn, no where to be seen in your own "analysis" above.

If this sort of exchange is more your preference folks like Karpel Tunnel will be more than happy to accommodate you.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.


gib wrote: I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.


What "kind" of question pertaining to what actual context? As that pertains to "getting" Buddhism such that we either are able to substantiate our answers as true objectively for all of us or we are not.

What else is there for the lot of us? In other words, for all practical purposes? My aim here is bring whatever questions and answers that any of us provide down out of the clouds. Sure, spend as much time as you wish grasping the technical, epistemological parameters of serious philosophy. But sooner or later you are going to be asked by me to integrate these intellectual contraptions into the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Given a particular set of circumstances. It's not a question [for me] of who either is or is not "responding" as opposed to "reacting", but responding or reacting to what set of behaviors that are in conflict given conflicting sets of assumptions regarding either a God or a No God world.


gib wrote: : Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.


iambiguous wrote: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.


gib wrote: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.


iambiguous wrote: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


gib wrote: Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.


No, the arguments themselves have to revolve around an actual murder. A murder most of us are likely to be familiar with. One of these for example: https://allthatsinteresting.com/famous-murders

Let's focus the discussion in on one of them. How, given the parameters of my moral philosophy, do I react/respond to the events here. As opposed to how you might react/respond the same or differently.

How about the Tate–LaBianca murders? Here those who did the killing were captured, tried and punished. Take your assessment of me above there. And, if there are any Buddhists in the audience here, they can react/respond insofar as the actual murders fit into the components of their own religious path.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


gib wrote: I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.


I make that attempt here on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

The points in the OP in particular. Read them and note how given a particular context your don't think like this at all regarding your own sense of self. Then the distinction I make between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


gib wrote: Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.


The explanation for that is encompassed in the OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


gib wrote: I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.


My guess: that's almost certainly rooted in dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:26 pm

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

In the May 2018 issue of Lion’s Roar, I wrote about the contemporary study of reincarnation, led by psychiatrist Jim Tucker at the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies. Tucker isn’t concerned with spirituality. He uses rigorous scientific methods to investigate cases in which children seem to recall past lives, and -- https://www.lionsroar.com/do-you-only-live-once/ --he has found some remarkable examples.


Clearly, to the extent that science does become interested in exploring the possibility of "past lives", I'm all for it. I'm less like the James Randis of the world who seem to take more interest in scoffing at things such as this than in taking them seriously. But how much of what is related in the accounts noted in the link above really in the vicinity of definitive proof of past lives.

And I ask from the perspective of someone who very much wants believe that, after death, it's not all just "oblivion"...the obliterated "I".

Even more remarkable than the individual cases, though, are the insights that can be gleaned when the cases are examined en masse. Tucker and his colleagues have collected thousands of cases and coded them into a computer database for statistical analysis, and they’ve started to draw some fascinating conclusions.


Okay, but here my reaction to anything of this magnitude is always the same. If they were really on to something here, and if the cumulative evidence "en masse" was sufficient, would not this be Big News? Wouldn't all of the media around the globe be drawn to it? I mean, actual substantive proof of life before and beyond the grave? Where are the front page headlines, where are television specials, where are the probing documentaries?

Isn't this something that millions and millions of us do want to believe is true? Wouldn't everyone be glued to accounts able to actually establish it? Or least lead us to believe a demonstration is within our reach?

Only, to my knowledge, there is nothing like that at all. So, for those among us who do believe it is true, how do you explain this? How wide is the gap between the anecdotes and the hard evidence?

It might be amiss to think that the Buddhist view can or should affirm the Western academic view, or vice versa. There’s also an important distinction between the two. Tucker’s team focuses on reincarnation, which generally implies the existence of a soul that transmigrates from body to body. The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self. (For more, see our collection of Buddhist teachings on the concept of rebirth.)


My own interest here isn't in whether Buddhists affirm the Western academic view, but the extent to which they can in fact demonstrate that reincarnation is, well, demonstrable. I'd be willing to settle for demonstrable proof that souls exist, regardless of where they end up after death. A "non-self" with an essential soul? How have they come to believe this much beyond believing it is true in their head? And acknowledging that there are any number of things thought through faith to be true in regard to religion...if for no other reason that psychologically many want them to be true.

I know that I do. Otherwise all that's left is what I do believe is true "in my head" here and now. No soul, no teleological font into which "I" can be embedded, no life after death.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:13 pm

ah
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:57 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
It might be amiss to think that the Buddhist view can or should affirm the Western academic view, or vice versa. There’s also an important distinction between the two. Tucker’s team focuses on reincarnation, which generally implies the existence of a soul that transmigrates from body to body. The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self. (For more, see our collection of Buddhist teachings on the concept of rebirth.)


My own interest here isn't in whether Buddhists affirm the Western academic view, but the extent to which they can in fact demonstrate that reincarnation is, well, demonstrable.


That precisely what they would have no interest in demonstrating since they, generally, do not believe in reincarnation. They don't think there is a soul that comes back or continues. And they draw this conclusion through long empirical study finding no continuity within a single life. That empirically no actually self or continuity of some 'thing' occurs. No persisten self or soul can be found. IOW they are a bit like you, only they find that no one and not their own decades long explorations, demonstrate persistence. And they are not particularly, in general making a claim, but finding no evidence that there is a persistant self. And since the atoms in our bodies are replaced, again within the lifetime, they can even have their not finding evidence supported by physicalism and science.


They? Who are "they" here? I presume perhaps you are talking about all of the Buddhists that you have interacted with in going out to be among them in order grasp first hand what they do or not not believe about reincarnation and the soul. Okay, why don't you then invite them here to participate in this discussion. As the very embodiment of Buddhism, they can tell us themselves.

And, again, noting what "they" either do or do not believe about reincarnation and the soul is not, in my view, the same thing as demonstrating it such that rational people would be obligated to think the same.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: They have nothing to demonstrate to you that will bring you peace if having a persistence self is that which will bring it to you.


More to the point [mine] what have they been able to demonstrate to themselves here that convinced them to believe what they do?

Instead, from my vantage point, it's straight back up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: They are not making an extra claim, they think most people are making an extra claim that there is this persistent self. Where you see no justification for objective morals, they also see no justification for a persistant self. However given that their practices, for them, erode their interest in finding such a thing, they are not after demonstrations.

Hinduism might be a better bet, but even there where there is reincarnation, they also, the dedicated practitioners, tend to put citation marks around that 'I'. Just a chunk of Vishnu or whichever God they use as their symbol having forgotten himself in finite form. I doubt you will find any solace their either. You can't squeeze the Western yearning for eternity from those Eastern stones.


Again, given my own interest in religion as the vehicle for connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of "I" there and then, this tells me practically nothing at all.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But then...how about the horror of eternal life`? Is that also not terrifying? A billion years, run twenty times and you haven't scratched the surface of that never ending existence.


What particular eternal life? Given what particular set of circumstances? Look, if I could live forever in an essentially meaningless existence that still included the food I love to eat, the music I love to listen to, the films I love to view, the books I love to read... along with all of the other experiences I cherish "here and now", I'll take that billion years. But, sure, if it also included terrible pain and suffering...maybe not.

But that's the point. We can speculate about "eternity" as "philosophers" until we are blue in the face. But that doesn't bring me an inch closer to demonstrating its actual existence. Let alone what it might entail.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I've mentioned what the Buddhist rebirth actually means before in this thread, but you seem not to have noticed, nor quite here either when someone else says it. It offers no solace or comfort unless one misunderstands it, which some, yes, do. It is not an afterlife for you, for your soul. Buddhism is saying that it will not be you tomorrow, that there is no persistance.


Again, you know "what the Buddhist rebirth actually means"...how exactly? Cite the experiences you have had in Buddhist communities. Are you or are you not able to invite those you interacted with into our discussion?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 50 years ago it was considered taboo in science to consider animals experiencing agents with emotions and intentions, etc. No rational person who believed animals were experiencers could prove this to scientists, in fact trying could fuck up your career. And yet, now most scientists would agree those who believed animals were sentient and lived their lives in dynamic relations with animals in part based on the assumption they were experiencers like us were rational and correct.


Okay, but in regarding to reincarnation, back to this:

If they were really on to something here, and if the cumulative evidence "en masse" was sufficient, would not this be Big News? Wouldn't all of the media around the globe be drawn to it? I mean, actual substantive proof of life before and beyond the grave? Where are the front page headlines, where are television specials, where are the probing documentaries?

Isn't this something that millions and millions of us do want to believe is true? Wouldn't everyone be glued to accounts able to actually establish it? Or least lead us to believe a demonstration is within our reach?

Only, to my knowledge, there is nothing like that at all. So, for those among us who do believe it is true, how do you explain this? How wide is the gap between the anecdotes and the hard evidence?


And now, The Shift. The shift from Karpel Tunnel making substantive points to Curly, the Stooge compelled to thump me:

Curly wrote:You want to take my posts as slime, fine. You've spat on everything, so in the end it seems like you mainly want to spit. Politely, at times, you spit, but generally with such condescension and dismissal and such a lack of humility about what you clearly know little about, both how one learns and whom you psychoanalyze.

If for a second you could actually consider how unbelievably rude you have been, well, that's a horror also.

I feel like I am talking to a Kid, as you would say about others.


Which merely brings me back to this:

Whenever Curly wants to dispense with the Stooge persona, I am more than willing to explore his accusations here in the philosophy forum.

No huffing and puffing, no clamoring histrionics, no personal attacks.

Just him and me discussing our respective moral philosophies given a context that most of us here are likely to be familiar with.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:14 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:ah


Note to others:

Huh?

I come into this thread and there's a new post from KT. Or there was one. I responded to it above. Now it is gone. You tell me.

ah?

He'll tell us.

Or not of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:17 am

It might be amiss to think that the Buddhist view can or should affirm the Western academic view, or vice versa. There’s also an important distinction between the two. Tucker’s team focuses on reincarnation, which generally implies the existence of a soul that transmigrates from body to body. The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self. (For more, see our collection of Buddhist teachings on the concept of rebirth.)


iambiguous wrote:My own interest here isn't in whether Buddhists affirm the Western academic view, but the extent to which they can in fact demonstrate that reincarnation is, well, demonstrable.


That is precisely what they would have no interest in demonstrating since they, generally, do not believe in reincarnation. They don't think there is a soul that comes back or continues. And they draw this conclusion through long empirical study finding no continuity within a single life. That empirically no actually self or continuity of some 'thing' occurs. No persisten self or soul can be found. IOW they are a bit like you, only they find that no one and not their own decades long explorations, demonstrate persistence. And they are not particularly, in general making a claim, but finding no evidence that there is a persistant self. And since the atoms in our bodies are replaced, again within the lifetime, they can even have their not finding evidence supported by physicalism and science.


They? Who are "they" here?
It includes the person writing the article. It is there in what you quoted.

I presume perhaps you are talking about all of the Buddhists that you have interacted with in going out to be among them in order grasp first hand what they do or not not believe about reincarnation and the soul. Okay, why don't you then invite them here to participate in this discussion. As the very embodiment of Buddhism, they can tell us themselves.
Well, again, the one you quoted already did. The information can be found in pretty much any expert work on Buddhism. And to why I wouldn't invite people I've long been out of contact with to come here and have a discussion with you...first it is your interest and you have the means to politely create private discussions with Buddhists via the internet. Second, I guess I thought I was fairly clear about what I thought it was like to have a discussion with you. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but it amazes me you might have forgotten that. Your interest, your work, and if you initiate the discussion, no one can blame me for asking them to converse with you. You're an adult, you have the internet.

And, again, noting what "they" either do or do not believe about reincarnation and the soul is not, in my view, the same thing as demonstrating it such that rational people would be obligated to think the same.
Right, but who said that it was the same? Not me in any case. It is, however, relevent to a discussion with Buddhists. IOW if you want, as you said, a demonstration that reincarnation is the case, asking Buddhists for is confused, as the article you quoted from itself mentions. Telling me what my reponse did not do is odd. It never tried to do that. I did however point out that asking Buddhists to demonstrate something they do not believe in is confused. And I did it in response to a post where you quoted someone saynig that it is not something they believe. That they have other beliefs that they do in fact belief in is beside THAT point, a point you raised in your post. Further in a context where you have said you would like to find a belief that would give you some hope for continued existence. Again, it seems relevent to me to point out that Buddhist DOES NOT offer that. In fact it undermines a belief that your soul or self will be around next week, let alone after death. Your seemed to present one of your motives being in relation to the fear of death. Well, Buddhism is the wrong tree then to bark up. As the article you quoted also states.


More to the point [mine] what have they been able to demonstrate to themselves here that convinced them to believe what they do?
I believe you said above you would really like to find out that there was reincarnation. That that would be a relief to you. I was pointing out that they do not believe in reincarnation and this is supported by your own choice of article above. That seems 'to the point' since it is a direct reaction to what you wrote. I am sorry it does not count as 'more to the point' but to the point seems like an ok response. But that might just be 'to me.'

I regretted the post, but not fast enough. Still some part of me driven by the idea that you might actually be interested in what you claim you want.
My own interest here isn't in whether Buddhists affirm the Western academic view, but the extent to which they can in fact demonstrate that reincarnation is, well, demonstrable. I'd be willing to settle for demonstrable proof that souls exist, regardless of where they end up after death.


To me pointing out that they do not believe in reincarnation, as the article quoted also asserts, is 'to the point' since 'they' won't be interested in demonstrating something they don't believe in. They don't believe in souls.

I respond on point, give my assessment of what Buddists believe, point out that the article you quote says the same thing, but really I need to be

MORE on point.

Being on point is not enough.

Yes, there is the OTHER issue of Buddhists demonstrating things they do believe in. For some odd reason I still think going where Buddhists are might be a good idea also. But that's likely just an intellectual contraption on my part.

I now understand that if you want group X to demonstrate belief Y and they do not hold that belief, it is not on the point enough to point this out. I now know that even if you say that part of why you are interested is because you would be happy to find death is not the end, pointing out that they have no belief to help you there and further the article you quote agrees on that point, it is not 'to the point' enough. They seemed like important points, given what you said about their importance and that you focused on them, but I now know I was confused on this point, even if it was by you.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:50 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
They? Who are "they" here?


It includes the person writing the article. It is there in what you quoted.


That's not how I interpreted it. To me you seemed to be arguing as though you were speaking for the Buddhists in regard to reincarnation and the soul. As though you were summing up their position in order to note how far my own understanding is from it.

Others can decide for themselves. Though sure I might have misunderstood you. And there's still the part where they demonstrate whatever they do believe is in fact the way it is.

The rest is just you accusing me yet again of posting in the the manner in which I do. The part that is far, far removed from my own interest in religion in general and Buddhism in particular. Others will either come to share your point of view or they won't. And that interest me least of all.

Though again I invite you to join me in a new thread in the philosophy forum. A civil exchange. One in which we focus the beam on our respective moral philosophies given a particular set of circumstances.

Again, if nothing else you can note in particular the manner in which your accusations are pertinent as the exchange unfolds.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:49 am

In any case....

The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self.
Sums it up well...there is no comfort to be found about an afterlife in Buddhism, and someone seeking a demonstration of reincarnation should look elsewhere. Buddhism not only does not offer comfort about eternal life, it undermines the sense that one will exist next Tuesday. There is no soul to continue even such a short distance in time.

Not my cup of tea, but hardly a contraption intended to soothe, quite the opposite. And the practices are hardly soothing....until a great deal of time has passed, with discipline.

The East has had certain mental technologies. The West has its psychotropics. For those who value equanimity over the primate social mammal expression of their limbic systems, these options are out there. Expression as in vocal, postural, facial changes which in turn are part of the experiencing of these emotions. In fact mindfullness (torn out of its Vispassana roots) is now actually competing in the West with psychotropics in many contexts.

And it being 'not my cup of tea' is not just a wry colloquialism. It's a taste thing. I am not under any illusion that my taste is universal. If someone wants, desires, the outcomes these technologies offer, well go for it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:24 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: In any case....

The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self.
Sums it up well...there is no comfort to be found about an afterlife in Buddhism, and someone seeking a demonstration of reincarnation should look elsewhere. Buddhism not only does not offer comfort about eternal life, it undermines the sense that one will exist next Tuesday. There is no soul to continue even such a short distance in time.


Okay, but none of this pertains to what I don't "get" about Buddhism: how individual Buddhists connect the dots in their interactions with others from day to day such that they choose one set of behaviors rather than another intertwined in how they have come to understand enlightenment and karma intertwined in how that is applicable to the part where "I" dies and is then face to face with eternity.

What do they believe about the soul here and how do they demonstrate to those who are not Buddhists why they should believe the same? Why not Western religion or one of other spiritual paths out there with so much at stake.

And again you appear [to me] to be speaking for the Buddhists here as though I and others need go no further if we want to pin down once and for all what Buddhists think about all of this.

And then [for me] the part where the illusory self is in possession of a soul. What soul? How is it demonstrated to exist? What in fact becomes of it after we die? How in a No God religion does the universe function to bring it all about?

As for the "illusion of self", yes, there are facets of Buddhism that overlap with my own assumption that "I" in the is/ought world is more an "existential contraption rooted in dasein" than a "real me". But there are aspects of my self rooted in the either/or world as well. And they appear to be anything but an illusion. But: what of the soul can be demonstrated to exist in the either/or world?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Not my cup of tea, but hardly a contraption intended to soothe, quite the opposite. And the practices are hardly soothing....until a great deal of time has passed, with discipline.


Well, I'll just note that compared to the seeming brute facticity of a fractured and fragmented self anchored to an essentially meaningless existence en route to oblivion, it seems mighty soothing to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: The East has had certain mental technologies. The West has its psychotropics. For those who value equanimity over the primate social mammal expression of their limbic systems, these options are out there. Expression as in vocal, postural, facial changes which in turn are part of the experiencing of these emotions. In fact mindfullness (torn out of its Vispassana roots) is now actually competing in the West with psychotropics in many contexts.


Okay, but only to the extent that Buddhists are willing to describe to me how "intellectual contraptions" of this sort become embodied in their social, political and economic interaction with others from the cradle to the grave [and beyond] am I likely to be interested. And, in particular, insofar as they choose the behaviors that they do given the main components of their spiritual narrative. And how they might react to the components of my own philosophical assumptions here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:22 pm

gib wrote:I don't get Buddhism. And I'm bothered by it. I feel like I get something as outrageous as Christianity better than I get Buddhism. Christianity has some pretty outrageous claims, yet I feel like I understand it more than I understand Buddhism... and I don't even believe in Christianity. I get science too. Science I can believe in more, and it too has some pretty outrageous claims, yet it's 1000 times more clear to me than the far simpler picture of Buddhism.


I thought I'd go back to the begining.Why would Gib or someone else in the West find Christianity more intelligle?

1) the most obvious is that he likely grew up with Christianity around him, and also constant references in everyday speech, movies, books, poetry, television, psychology (the Jesus complex) and on and on.
2) the second reason would be that the Bible and Xianity in general also affected Western culture in many ways, and these effects make concepts and symbols from Christianity reinforced by other concepts in society. It fits a lot of other ideas. It sits within a context that connects to the religion.
3) it only seems more intelligible. A Westerner, in general, is going to have a very different experience of Christianity. If their parents are Christian then they grow up with the rituals and recurring experiences of the religion without having to wrestle with, for exmaple, what the hell the Trinity is. When connnecting with Buddhism, they are deciding to, generally, focus on some kind of spiritual/religious journey. The metaphysics, the long term goals are part of the more immediate experience consciously by that person. A Buddhist in Asia may not sit around mulling over what enlightenment is or what anatta really means. They have learned to bow to the Buddha, hold their hands certain ways, to respect monks and offer alms to them and then they go to school and worry about their zits and the opposite sex and grades. It is part of the furniture of their lives. They may, yes, even as kids, have some vague notion of Karma - do bad stuff and bad stuff will happen to you sometime, but they are not getting into the nitty gritty of this as a metaphysical assertion. What I am trying to say is that when we think of Buddhism, as adults considering it, say, as a possible path, we bring a much more organized, concept focus, outside of the culture approach. It is a very different kind of thinking. Some guy who went to church with his parents a few times a year, who beliefs in God/Jesus, but doesn't think much about it, is going to see Christianity and be cognitively challenged by it much more if he decides at 25 to become a priest or kills a kid while drunk driving and dives heavily into the religion. What is grace? What is original sin? And y eah, what the hell is the Trinity? And then there would be all this work reconciling the OT with the NT perhaps. I think the way we come to these religons affect how obvious some of the concept are. If we get them scattershot through our culture and upbringing and haven't consciously chosen it as a some kind of spiritual path, it will seem obviouser than it is. A Buddhist not born a Christian but converting would likely have to wrestle with odd concepts.
4) Eastern culture is different and individuality and the separate self is more foreign. Something like anatta is not the same degree of metaphysical threat that it is to a Westerner (in general). Identity, subject object splits, the relationship with desire are quite different in the East and this makes it fit better with the rest of the culture.
5) Christianity focuses a lot on beliefs and morals. Buddhism focuses more or states of consciousness and practical morals. And the latter because of its affects on the former. Buddhism is less concerned with beliefs, in fact to a great degree wanting us to ignore them. I think when we compare the religions we often compare the average Christian believer with what a Buddhist monk is doing. Because when Westerners move towards Buddhism, they are thinking of a level of expertise that the average Christian and the average Buddhist is not focused on at all. And that focus is much more radical, because you are aiming to change the way one experiences, not just a particular thought one has - yes, God exists - when you happen to be thinking of it. But to change your relationsship to thought, emotions, perception. To change your breathing. To change the way you connect or don't your thoguhts and feelings with the body (or the rest of the body for monists physicalists).
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:I introduce the components of my own moral philosophy and note how in any particular context "I" become the embodiment of this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Others can then react to this and note the manner in which it either is or is not embodied in their own moral, political or spiritual "self". In confronting conflicting goods given a particular set of circumstances.

I think that’s called indecisiveness..

It also sounds like your thoughts are possessing you, rather than you possessing them and taking control of their ebb and flow.. thoughts could then be thought of as tide-like, but what is it that causes them to be so? internal and external factors perhaps.

Thus any "re-answer" to your initial question would be the same. Unless you were able to persuade me that my answer needs to be changed because your own arguments make that necessary. And that of course works in both directions as well.

I don’t think that matters now.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

..and what is it that they are obligated to think about death, exactly? Such thoughts come and go.. why force them or give them such importance in your life, at the detriment of the more conducive ones?

Surrep's post in the Reincarnation thread, is identical to my thoughts on this matter.. star stuff, and all that.

MagsJ wrote:
What society, religion, or peoples, do you know that does that? The ancients were supposed to have done so, but the reasons behind it back then would have dictated such a ritual be followed, that would not be deemed necessary now.
Again, what interest me is why there are so many different and conflicting assessments of death down through the ages, cross culturally and given individual experiences. To what extent is that related to the manner in which I construe the "self" here as the embodiment of dasein. Or, instead, are philosophers able to provide us with the most reasonable explanation.

You’d make a good Life Insurance salesman, I’ll give you that..

MagsJ wrote:
The different and conflicting assessments of death are based on circumstance or belief, of what a Peoples thought was the best or intended thing to do.. for whatever reason that may have been. That reason could have been due to ritual, scientific knowledge, spiritual belief, and any other number of other reasons.
Yes, that's my point. Different historical/cultural/circumstantial contexts, different beliefs, different reasons. "I" as the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world. Then, historically, philosophers as we know them today came into existence. For thousand of years now they have been thinking about death. So, what definitive conclusions have they come to regarding how rational men and women ought to think about it. And how long ought they to think about it each day.

Why do you think they should?

Just because it was written in a Canonical book somewhere, doesn’t mean it needs to be adopted and replicated ad infinitum, and wasn’t the concept used to foster wrong-doing via the vehicle of terrorism. I’d say that that concept has lost its utility.. however much it actually ever had in the first place, for most.. it is an unhelpful hindrance of a mental contraption, that impedes and stunts mental and personal growth.

MagsJ wrote:I wouldn’t say that others think that their own spiritual path is the best option for All, but that maybe it is, for Them.. the Messiahs and Buddhas that did, probably wanted to share the pain of their existential crisis, and so shared their experiences on that which not to do, that led them to those thoughts and that place, in time.
Same thing though. People say different things for different reasons. So, how much of that is the embodiment of dasein, and how much comes back instead to that which all rational men and women can in fact determine to be true objectively? Again, with all that is at stake: morality and enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

That may be you’re equation for life/existence, but it certainly isn’t mine.. mine is a much more freer/less structured existential modality than that, and is different than even that of my siblings and parents and everyone else.

Do you not get bored? of thinking and re-repeating your mantra for life.. may I ask how it came to be?

I don’t currently have a mantra, and the ones I did have are far too moderne for this joint. My ancestors wrote Mantras and designed Mandalas.. their surname even signifies that they did, as they were seers during the ancient Indic period in the time of Dravida.

It's not for nothing it seems that so many people in so many denominations in so many different contexts go back forth between leaps of faith and fierce belief.

I think that’s in desperation, gained from fear, but of what.. the unknown?

MagsJ wrote:Sounds like personal choices to me.. what do you always have against that? like people can’t think for themselves.. most can. Probably what I read in the bible is ingrained on my subconscious somewhere, but that is unavoidable.. due to the nature of reading.
...I go in one direction with "I" here and you go in another.

I engage any particular "self" and the choices he or she makes by introducing them to the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Sure, you can argue that your views on vaccines or on Trump are just "personal choices" confronting the "personal choices" of those who disagree.

But my point is to focus instead in on the extent to which these choices are either political prejudices rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein or are instead viewed by the objectivists among us as reflections of their own "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Then "political prejudices" reconfigure into deontological, ideological, theological etc., Good and Evil and the world comes to be divided up self-righteously into those who are either "one of us" or "one of them".

Some things are not that simple, and so do not fit within the confines of your mantra.. my decisions in life are not bound up and made in the same way as yours.. and so my mantra, and therefore my path, are very different to yours and others and very unique to me.

Individualism.. the new (ir)religion.

MagsJ wrote:If you want to introduce the arguments that you make in your signature threads, then by all means share those excerpts, here.. so that a more complete exchange can take place, and not a guessing-game of what you are actually eluding to.
Someone is either interested enough in the points I raise on these threads to take the time to read the OPs from my signature threads or they are not. And it's not the "arguments" that interest me as much as taking the intellectual contraptions contained in them out into the world of human interactions pertaining specifically to identity, value judgments and political power. As they become intertwined in contexts involving conflicting goods. In either a God or a No God world.

With Buddhism though we are dealing with a No God religion. And that is particularly ineffable to me.

I, and others, have read those OPs in your signature threads, and yet here we still are..

Why don’t I find you a new mantra, and you can try it on for size.. after-all, it’s what We did. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20326
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:I introduce the components of my own moral philosophy and note how in any particular context "I" become the embodiment of this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Others can then react to this and note the manner in which it either is or is not embodied in their own moral, political or spiritual "self". In confronting conflicting goods given a particular set of circumstances.

MagsJ wrote: I think that’s called indecisiveness..

It also sounds like your thoughts are possessing you, rather than you possessing them and taking control of their ebb and flow.. thoughts could then be thought of as tide-like, but what is it that causes them to be so? internal and external factors perhaps.


Again, from my frame of mind, we are in two very different discussions.

Being decisive or indecisive about what particular behaviors in what particular context? Same with being "possessed" by thoughts. In rergard to what?

What are those "internal and external" factors -- existential variables -- that go into creating a particular "I" when confronted with conflicting goods such that one's religious values kick in in order to make distinctions between moral/enlightened behavior here and now as that then becomes translated into a frame of mind revolving around that which these "spiritual" paths are said to bring into fruition on the other side of the grave.

You and the Buddhists will either bring this down to Earth in terms of your own behaviors in particular sets of circumstances or you will continue to make me the problem for insisting that this is where it makes the most sense for these discussions to go.

So, in a discussion in which we are exchanging views on a particularly contentious set of conflicting goods, you can note how I am indecisive and possessed by my thoughts. And I can note how "I" [both yours and mine] seem more embedded subjectively/existentially in dasein than in some definitive conclusions that religion or philosophy or science might provide us.

Choose the context yourself. Otherwise how are we not just wasting each other's time?

You want to find me a new mantra and I want to explore how moral and political mantras themselves are derived existentially from the arguments I make in my signature treads. As opposed to one of hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths out there, the adherents of which basically argue "repeat after me and you will choose the right things to do here and now in order to attain immortality and salvation there and then."

And you also claim to have read my signature threads.

Okay, let's start with the OP on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Note behaviors that you have chosen of late given your moral and political value judgments here and now and note how the argument I make here is not applicable to you.

Then I will note my own reaction to these behaviors given the points I make in the OP.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:00 am

Could you guys possibly take that discussion, if Mags is interested in a discussion of her political positions in that way, to another thread, since it seems like it will not have anything to do with Buddhism?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:50 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you guys possibly take that discussion, if Mags is interested in a discussion of her political positions in that way, to another thread, since it seems like it will not have anything to do with Buddhism?

Our discussion has everything to do with Buddhism, but if Iam wants to take our discussion towards a more political one, then that would be a separate discussion to be had, in a separate thread.. as well as us continuing in this one, as I am not the one interested in taking this down the political route, in here.

Thank you for your suggestion. :)

..a suggestion for Gib! start with a mandala and mantra, and see how that goes/where it takes you. Buddhism 101, if you will.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20326
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:15 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you guys possibly take that discussion, if Mags is interested in a discussion of her political positions in that way, to another thread, since it seems like it will not have anything to do with Buddhism?

Our discussion has everything to do with Buddhism, but if Iam wants to take our discussion towards a more political one, then that would be a separate discussion to be had, in a separate thread.. as well as us continuing in this one, as I am not the one interested in taking this down the political route, in here.
Great. It seemed he was requesting you move in the political direction, glad to hear it will continue to be Buddhism.


Thank you for your suggestion. :)

Sure.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:03 pm

Buddhism/Conduct.. thought over fought, so when man stopped being beast.

Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20326
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:46 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you guys possibly take that discussion, if Mags is interested in a discussion of her political positions in that way, to another thread, since it seems like it will not have anything to do with Buddhism?


This from the guy who, over and over and over again, attempts to hijack the thread and reconfigure it from what we don't get about Buddhism into what he does get about iambiguous. And, therefore, perforce, what all rational men and women are obligated to get too.

You know, in my own personal opinion.

Besides, my post above makes a number of references to spiritual paths and religion, of which Buddhism is certainly one of them.

Unless, of course, his post is just tongue in cheek. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:10 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you guys possibly take that discussion, if Mags is interested in a discussion of her political positions in that way, to another thread, since it seems like it will not have anything to do with Buddhism?

Our discussion has everything to do with Buddhism, but if Iam wants to take our discussion towards a more political one, then that would be a separate discussion to be had, in a separate thread.. as well as us continuing in this one, as I am not the one interested in taking this down the political route, in here.


First, of course, my interest in religion focuses in part on how those who practice one or another denomination almost always include a moral narrative said to be linked to immortality and salvation. And that moral narrative can then come into conflict with the moral narratives of other religious denominations. As well as any number of secular No God ideologies. And what does that precipitate in a particular human community but politics. Embodied in, among others things, the law.

With Buddhism however it gets trickier [for me] because there is no God and thus no Judgment Day as most Western denominations adhere to.

To separate a discussion of religion from a discussion of morality from a discussion of politics is utterly alien to me. Why? Because my understanding of human identity itself here necessarily intertwines all three in dasein.

As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37242
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.

..only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure. ; )

Sound familiar? :laughing-rolling:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20326
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users