It’s not the “idea” of detachment that most intrigues me.
I don’t understand how one think of oneself as not being attached when in fact in so many ways Buddhists, like most of us, are in fact attached to any number of things in their interactions with others from day to day. And, like most of us, they come to embody moral and political value judgments that in any particular context precipitates behaviors with actual consequences that one way or another is connected to how they think the universe functions insofar as they understand the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana.
Unless of course they choose to live entirely separated from others. Or cloistered only with other Buddhists in an entirely insular community.
But look at the 14th Dalai Lama. He is always popping up somewhere. **
I’m focusing as I always do on that which is of most interest to me – me, not you – about religion:
1] how believers come to differentiate right from wrong, good from bad behaviors on this side of the grave
2] how their approach to value judgments here and now become embodied in the behaviors that they choose given what they would want the fate of “I” to be there and then
Now it’s your turn to remind us all of what we should be talking about instead.
** In fact he pops up on next Sunday’s episode of The Vow on HBO. Stay tuned.
About the interrelation between Heidegger and Buddhism:
"a brief account of existential psychoanalysis, which understands our primary repression to be death-fear. [1] This modification of Freudianism will itself be modified by anatma, to show that death-denial, too, symbolically re-presents something else even more basic and terrifying: the quite valid suspicion that ‘I’ don’t really exist. "
This differentiates Freudian and Jungian analysis, and ultimately based on Heidegger’s zen-Buddhist understanding. It did play a part in Being and Time.
Particularly the understanding of Suzuki’s concern with emptiness.
Guys, I m so terribly keen to believe and overjoyed to have found important connections.
I’ve never argued that life is meaningless. On the contrary, existentially, it is bursting at the seams with meaning. But in a No God or No Religion world there does not appear to be a way in which to ascribe – teleologically – any essential meaning to it. Thus no font for differentiating right from wrong behavior on this side of the grave and no font to attach “I” to on the other side of it.
Unless of course you count your own “spiritual contraptions” that, up in the clouds, manage to comfort and console you.
And, in fact, Larry did acknowledge that he now sees his own life as meaningless…and on the road to oblivion.
Whereas I deem my own life “here and now” as essentially meaningless and apparently on the road to oblivion. I can no longer think myself into embodying your own psychologisms – “a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms” – when it comes to grappling with the existential relationship between morality and immortality. Only, in my view, your own subjective/subjunctive “I” here is still viewed by you as objective.
And, again, based on my past experiences with objectivists, it doesn’t surprise me when some reconfigure into Stooges and aim the discussions at me more than at the actual points I am making in regard to God and religion. In fact, Larry might have already come to suspect that perhaps I do know what I am talking about here. And that bit by bit he is beginning to suspect those points are applicable to him too. But that’s all just sheer speculation extrapolated from past experiences with objectivists.
Thus it is Curly’s reaction to me that is most fascinating. He already more or less agrees with some of what I’m saying. He said so himself recently. He has no objective morality and/or spiritual path to lose. With him it’s something else about me. I’m thinking it might revolve around the fact that somehow he still does not see his own “I” as nearly “fractured and fragmented” as I see mine. That his own rendition of “pragmatism” keeps his “self” together in a more coherent manner than I am now able to. In regard to his own moral and political value judgments.
When have I ever denied that? I have reached a grim point in my life. In regard to my own moral and political values, “I” am fractured and fragmented. I can no longer feel comforted that there is a “real me” able to confidently differentiate the good guys from the bad guys. And there it is: oblivion. Getting closer and closer each day.
So, yes, I spend a few hours each day probing the thoughts of others in regard to this truly fundamental relationship. Only some [I suspect] begin to succumb more to my frame of mind than me to theirs. My arguments come to threaten their own more or less solidified sense of self. Their own “spiritual” comfort and consolation.
Some then reconfigure the exchange into an attack on me. They become Stooges.
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there is this huge gap between what the religious profess to believe and what they are able to demonstrate is/as in fact true. Even to themselves.
No, in the sense that Buddhism is a No God religion. And that is particularly problematic to me. How on earth does the universe itself effectuate all the things they believe? At least with astrology you can point to the actual movement of celestial bodies.
But Buddhism…? How can adherents think themselves into believing that somehow it all just happens? Other then because psychologically they want to believe it.
Aren’t the women who became sex slaves to Keith Raniere [even allowing themselves to be branded with his initials in their pubic area] an example of just how far some will go in order to believe that they are part of something that is bigger than all of us? Just another rendition of the religious mentality to me.
On the theme to unification as a possibility, as a way to contrive some sense in which oblivion may have another sense in which either interpretation is possible, excite Your senses?
Particularly in the mode of realizing that we may, unwittingly share in something greater than in our own understanding beneath that sense?
Is particularization reductively the static morality. , without and within. , that our mortality is grounded, at all another possibility yet to play out? Let us remember that man has been around here as a species for 10,000 years of recorded history, while our mother earth has been revolving and orbiting for billions of years.
That argument seems to me , stretches the realm of possibility, and the nihilism of today may in the future be reversed by Being , which presently is eaten up by existential , particular nihilism.
Maybe this is a necessary process on way to higher human development.
Unless an all consuming entropic finality is pre-determined.
The only viable critique that can be envisioned, is that man destroys himself during this next transition
But then the question settles it with the probable answers that multiple startups are still possible for the remainder of this planet’s duration.
that’s all there is to calculating how good your record is in life.
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…
Karmic score … This could very well be the yardstick for determining one’s status in the afterlife.
As for proving the existence of an afterlife itself … that is much harder. It requires more insight into the extra-corporeal eletromagnetics of what we call soul, and its relationship with cosmic radiation…
if Star Wars can be interpreted as per the laws of Euhemerus (highly possible), the place where souls (or at least midi-chlorians) go to, is in the center of the galaxy, and that’s where they come from as well.
Trying to prove this from the kind of literature we have in our times in the public domain, is a fool’s pursuit .
Literary references!
In the absence of which, i use euhemerus distillations of some popular fiction. Damned are the fools who burnt down the libraries of alexandria, constantinople, nalanda, and birmingham !
Can we find something more useful in secret libraries, like the Vatican library?? Perhaps, it would be enough to answer iambiguous’s specific question about the proof for reincarnation. I would just tend to believe it because i am convinced that the electromagnetic story is more central (we material world manifestations are just echos of that story), and this EM story must be obeying the laws of entropy, energy conservation etc.
If you heal and bring relief and balance to entropy, it elevates your soul (electromagnetic signature), but if you just be a jerk, and block entropy, it dampens the same. Entropy is the way to understand all systems, including this one.
So many things effect where our soul goes.
In a way, our soul is already there, in the after world.
Doing good deeds is a good idea.
But developing the energy body is also super important.
Christians don’t have energy meditation.
They would say only Jesus or God can save you; you can’t safe yourself.
That may be true in the case of hopelessly screwed people.
But in real life, we need to rely on our own strength far more than relying on God’s supposed help.
"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.
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.
How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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:
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 ?
