d63, have you practiced zazen?
The void one attains is not at all the absence of values, which is what nihilism means. You appear to be musguided. So will anyone be who judges a fruit without tasting it. Zen is a physiological practice, a hygiene of comport vs ones own body and mind, not a theory.
Words have very little relation to zen, and semantic comparisons are wholly antithetical to it. Further, zen and Buddhism are not at all the same.
That is due to some Buddhists misinterpreting and unable to understand Buddhism proper. I stated earlier,
Zen is a fringe sect of Buddhism.
However, zen is leveraged on the core principles of Buddhism, i.e. the substance, what vary is the form.
[b]Nihilism [Merriam-Webster].
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths[/b]
my emphasis
Different dictionary, different shade of grey.
Of course some insist there is but one way in which to understand the meaning of a word like nihilism. And that perforce is the manner in which they do. It’s as though they are holding nihilism in their hand like a rock and saying, “this is nihilism”.
And the more abstract the definition the better.
I am myself a nihilist. But the manner in which I understand the meaning of the word revolves around the distinctions we can make between that which is true objectively for all of us and that which is embodied more in a subjective point of view.
So, in that context, what does it mean to ascribe nihilism to the knowledge we can accummulate pertaining to mathematics or the laws of nature or empirical/phenomenal facts or the logical rules of language?
Instead, from my perspective, it pertains more to things like identity and value judgments. To those relationships that we cannot [or have not yet] pinned to the mat epistemologically with language and logic.
And certainly not with dictionaries.
As for the relationship between nihilism and Buddhism, I am certainly willing to discuss this with those who subscribe to the Buddhist philosophy. But only as this might be viewed in the context of actual human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. Which is my own main interest here.
Buddhism in general has a very narrow field of interest which is to stop harming oneself through self mortification and/or self indulgence. If your thoughts are outside of this narrow field then you are off topic as far as Buddhism is concerned.
Yes, Ambig, and Prismatic , regardless of what Miriam Webster (a mainstream institution (has to say about it, the definition I got from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy was that of a generally misunderstood term that is primarily about being tapped into nothingness: that which is value neutral.
Rhizome 12/8/14:
Prelude:
The following quotes are from a discourse that, coincidentally, ran parallel to a discourse (or a respectful debate if you will (I was having with one Raan on the relationship between Zen Buddhism and what I prefer to call the nihilistic perspective. And contrary to my initial assumption (oops!!! (there was no connection between this and my discourse with Raan. But that made it all that cooler in that it suggested there were others out there that saw the connection I did –that is along with those who prefer to maintain a distance between the 2. Anyway (just the highlights:
“Could anyone please make me understand how Buddhism avoids nihilism? I love Buddhism, but it seems as if it believes that ultimately everything is pointless. Am I correct? How am I misunderstanding Buddhism?”
“It is my understanding, although I have not studied eastern thought in any great depth, that the attempt to define the “point” of “everything” is pointless. It seems to be more of a refutation of rationalism and the overinflation of our notion of reason. “
“Nihilism is AGAINST Buddhism. Buddhism is about the Middle Way, non-duality of all things. Shunyata or emptiness is not about nihilism, it is about the inherent existence as being false (reality not found in our own concepts and ideas), or an illusion. Non-ego does not mean our consciousness does not exist, it just means our ego is a mind-created illusion. Our ability to be aware is called the “Buddha Nature”.
“Buddhism is pantheistic. That is to say, everything is included in its theology and the harmony of all things matters.
How, on this basis, can it be in any way nihilistic?
It cannot.”
“The first thing to be clear is we need to understand what we meant by ‘nihilism’.
The essence of ‘nihilism’ is ‘nothing’.
‘Nothing’ can be used in the positive or negative sense.
‘Nothing of evil but all of good’ is the positive sense of nihilism.”
“ni•hil•ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.”
“Nihilism [Merriam-Webster].
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
my emphasis
Different dictionary, different shade of grey.
Of course some insist there is but one way in which to understand the meaning of a word like nihilism. And that perforce is the manner in which they do. It’s as though they are holding nihilism in their hand like a rock and saying, “this is nihilism”.
And the more abstract the definition the better.”
I would also add here the definition offered in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
“The theory promoting the state of believing in nothing, or of having no allegiances and no purposes. The term is incorrectly used to characterize all persons not sharing some particular faith or particular set of absolute values.”
Now from the nihilistic perspective, as I understand it, it would be pointless to argue about the level of authority involved in the three dictionary definitions offered. This would involve assumptions about what constitutes “authority”. And according to the nihilistic perspective (at least as I understand it (assumptions float on thin air. They’re ultimately ungrounded and have no solid foundation. This, in turn, leaves us no other choice than to think of the terms “nihilism” and “Buddhism” not as fixed, but as Ambig (an old ally when it comes to the nihilistic perspective –despite our differences (has insisted, as terms we carry with us in the actions of Dasein: the being in the world that projects out of its possible non-being.
As I was engaged in my debate with Raan, I eventually (thanks to his soft touch and repose (had to revise my position to the extent that while I still believe that the nihilistic perspective and the Buddhist one are tapped into the same underlying nothingness and ungroundedness, the responses to it are different. As I said to Raan:
“For instance, even though it slips in ways I have described, Zen maintains a commitment to the dissipation of the Ego. The nihilistic perspective (that which I still confidently use interchangeably with a sort of Zen Nihilism (on the other hand, makes no such commitment. This is what makes it more susceptible (given its secular rejection of the spiritual implications of the underlying nothingness and ungroundedness (to the pitfalls of the psychotic and the sociopathic –that is even though I still argue that the Zen approach is still susceptible to them.”
Perhaps athunley captured the impasse (based on the common connection between Buddhism and the Nihilistic perspective (when they said:
“t is my understanding, although I have not studied eastern thought in any great depth, that the attempt to define the “point” of “everything” is pointless. It seems to be more of a refutation of rationalism and the overinflation of our notion of reason. “
It seems to me that where the 2 depart are in the symbolic systems and agendas that emerge from them.
Coda:
Anyway, it’s always one rhizome (enfolding (and enfolded within) other rhizomes) leading to another and the roll of the dice. I appreciate the diversion from Efficiency which has grown into a monster that won’t let me go: a simple idea that turned into a fucking book I haven’t got time to write. Still, I have to chip away at it (it is one of my golden eggs (but I hope to elaborate on this even further –especially since I worked at this feeling a little more fatigued than usual: I feel like I’ve stomped (heavy-handedly (through it.
It’s always a pleasure (and inspiration (jamming w/ the sincere….
PS: I especially hope to get back to Ambig’s point (since it says a lot about my take on it:
"It’s as though they are holding nihilism in their hand like a rock and saying, “this is nihilism”.
And the more abstract the definition the better.”
This, I think, gets at the interference that language (that which always falls short of the reality it is trying to describe (imposes on the discourse…
Anyway,
Only on Monday:
….
…
.
.
.