Daniel Dennet, for instance, tries to do away with the "hard problem" of consciousness by basically explaining it away as no problem at all. That's why I say that Pinker brings a lot less ideological baggage to this subject. I've quoted him before regarding the hard problem of consciousness and he has mentioned that, although we might be able to get down to every bit of brain tissue and say "this bit here is for the color red," that the experience of the color red is still left unexplained. But I personally have no problem whatsoever with the idea that our brains and minds are linked and that the brain is necessary in order to have the mind. But the philosophical implications of this are truly stunning. Matter is no longer just dead matter. It is somehow supercharged with some "essence." And although (before science) we had been pretty much going down a bind alley ever since Aristotle made popular the idea of the "essence" of things, clearly at some point we have to deal with the fact that matter and energy are more than they seem (or, rather, more than we measure).

One of the most basic philosophical questions is: Is there a difference between what something is and what something does? We could think of science being analogous to a map of a highway system. If this map is drawn in enough detail, we can predict the flow of the traffic. We can understand why cars come to a stop at that fuzzy red thing and why they keep going (or start up again) when they see that fuzzy green thing on our maps. But is the map the same as the territory? I think it's a legitimate question. A guy like Dennett would say that it is. A guy like Pinker might say it is not. Am I saying this in a way that makes any sense?

Okay, let's see how this next post rates on the DT (death threat) meter:

After having immersed myself in neo-Darwinism (and a bit of Dawkin's and Blackmore's ideas of memes to boot), I've decided that Rico is related to baboons, Markle to chimpanzees, and Yabor to Gibbons. (Mel Gibbons, I think.) But seriously, it's clear to me from the workings of matter and energy (and whatever hell else there is), and from observing the effects in the universe of these things (including the creation of life), that this universe, in its most fundamental form, is about the exchange, movement, and transformation of energy (matter equals energy, so that's included to).

Go ahead and put god on the back end of all this as the thing that got it all rolling. But what is rolling operates on principles that are as described above. If you assign any kind of motive or plan to all this it must come at the extreme back end. The actual workings of the universe operate with mathematical precision. Natural selection itself is stunning proof of this, as are the stars and galaxies in the sky. I don't think we can really say that there are any natural laws, per se. But we can say that there is order in the universe and that the universe itself is order. And this order, along with the nature of the universe itself (including its ability to create life) can suggest what is behind this order, or what this order really is, there is no denying the order itself and the way things form. Darwin's idea of Natural Selection, while brilliant from a human point of view, is nothing really but a confirmation that the universe is an orderly one. Things don't progress willy-nilly. The so-called "laws of nature" don't operate one way one minute and another way another minute. The idea of natural selection shows that this world shapes itself according to its own fundamental rules of transformation.

There is no evidence of miracles, but everything around us is surely a miracle in some sense. It's just that the true miracle is this order. How odd that "miracle" for so long has been equated with disorder, which is what special circumstances and willy-nilly changing the laws of nature means.

A simple, but effective, rule of thumb for everything would go something like this: The reason things exist in the form that they do is because that form promotes the further existence of this same form (this is the heart of evolution) and/or the form is allowed by existence (follows what we call "the laws of nature").

There is matter and energy, and there are rules for how they transform. There is mystery in this, but there is also *this*. And this "this" is often forgotten and miracles and all kinds of malarkey are put in this's place. The rules are the rules. THAT there are even rules is a huge mystery, never mind what the rules themselves are, as interesting as that might be. And these rules are a cause for further thought and research in order to refine them even further. But it's clear by now that there are rules. It's stupid to argue this point. Darwinism isn't a different type of god. Darwin doesn't even compete with god, per se. Darwin is a confirmation that, indeed, the universe is coherent, rational, and runs on rules, not willy-nilly miracles that might please only the minds of fundamentalists.

The interesting thing about this universe it that, through science, we have deduced the rules for how the available palette of colors (matter, energy, sentience, etc.) gets formed into the things that it does, including people and galaxies. We just have no idea why that palette was loaded with those colors in the first place. We see that there are rules, but have no idea why the rules are the way they are. This is actually a very poor place for the insertion of a god concept because god ought to be at least as clear and concise as the rules themselves. To posit god as an all-power, all-knowing being who is, for all intents and purposes, invisible is to relegate god to nothing and to say nothing. And yet, even if science were to draw everything down mathematically (and mathematically is all that it is in its power to do) to some kind of superstring, we would yet have to marvel at the essence of that string. Basically our equations could, in theory, describe the world mathematically in a very simple way. And the final thing that the final equation pointed to and described would then necessarily be so rich with "essence" as to be worthy of the name of "god." In a superstring is Shakespeare. In a superstring are orgasms, Picasso, and OS 9. And so you see, if we ever come up with just one equation that describes all the laws of nature that we can see and deduce, we will have immediately revealed our poverty. We will have said everything and yet nothing. We will hit that point where we finally understand that mathematics isn't reality, even though it is a part of it, and an important part indeed.

Personally, I think most people are completely full of shit when they speak of the ultimates and the highest truths. No one knows. The very nature of ideas, imagination, consciousness, and feelings means that all sort of bullshit and mischief is possible. It's perhaps strange that this is so, but it is indeed so. Emotions can have us feeling things are true even if they are not. We live with the equivalent of a gigantic funhouse mirror right inside our heads.

The battle of ideas perhaps falls into two main camps. It's a battle between the Buddhist-like idea of the emptiness of all things and a religious-like idea of a deep meaning to all things. It's curious to see how reality offers some of both, and that neither is satisfactory. To say that the universe is empty is to ignore the full parts and to thus take a reductionist view which says that because things can be broken down into smaller parts, everything is ultimately a nothing because we can imagine very very small and basic parts. If this idea isn't very workable then neither is the idea of a divine creator, at least in the classical sense. You can't really have deep meaning to every and all events when they are merely following the laws of physics. But somewhere in between (or outside) is perhaps the truth. And we all want truth, and want it now, so we tend to inflate one or other of these extremes into Truth. And we usually end up wading knee deep in our own bullshit. But who cares so long as it feels nice. And feelings tend to be everything.

And if you want to get technical, feelings are a state of existence. Feelings are unique things. There is an essence grasped in feelings. This mistake is to cross boundaries and to say, in essence, that two plus two doesn't equal four because you feel that five is the truth. That won't wash. To use feelings to explore reality takes some discipline.

Anyway, enough with this ramble. I don't feel it rated too high on the DT Meter. I'll do better next time.

quote:

A simple, but effective, rule of thumb for everything would go something like this: The reason things exist in the form that they do is because that form promotes the further existence of this same form (this is the heart of evolution) and/or the form is allowed by existence (follows what we call "the laws of nature").

How dare you. You maniac. I thought those vile Aristotelian ideas were a thing of the past. You have no right to bring them back. May baby Jesus and the angels strike you down.

How dare you. You maniac. I thought those vile Aristotelian ideas were a thing of the past. You have no right to bring them back. May baby Jesus and the angels strike you down.

That really didn't score very high on the Death-o-Meter. Something tells me your heart wasn't really in it.

For a change of pace I introduce this site which has two of my favorite poets, Rumi and Kabir. The photos are gorgeous, so enjoy, even if you do not agree with what is being said.

Do push continue button at the end of each page, which takes you to the next one.

http://www.peaceandcontentment.com/page1.htm

Mother nature, how sweet she is. A Canadian goose has decided to build a nest on top of the roof of my well pump house. The nest is lovingly formed of pine needles, and she has laid her eggs. Although the roof on the well house is slanted, the pine needles when wet have a glue like feel and adhere to the surface of the roof, together with their contributing warmth to the eggs. She has also fluffed all around the inside of the nest downy feathers. The gander is most involved in this forthcoming joyful event. He sits with her on the nest, reliefs her of her duties now and than so that she can move around below to feed. I have also seen him bring her food which he regurgitates and feeds to her.

Talk about evolution, some birds are certainly on a higher scale of evolution with both parents taking an active part in bringing forth their offspring and in both of their involvement in rearing them. I have heard that geese mate for life, not unlike us humans who always think that the grass is greener on the other side.

I'll keep you posted as to this joyful, happy blessing for me.

The main predator right now is a mountain lion (cougar) who could jump down from the oak tree next to the well house, but not without fierce attacks from the gander and his goose. Coyotes and foxes are no threat at this time. Of course, if there is success in this hatching, predators like hawks will be threatening.

I want to correct a long-standing mistake of mine, brother Yabor: Cynicism is warranted – at least for the intelligent and the aware.

By that statement, brother Yabor, I mean that you were right and I was wrong. Think back. A long time back. I'm sure you remember that conversation. But screw needing to be perfect. I'll just take the truth, thank you. And the truth is that reality has no honor. People may have honor. But reality has no honor. And I don't mean the kind of honor in which you tell someone "Mohammed was a goat fucker" and then that someone feels obliged to cut off your head for the sake of honor. That is not upholding honor. That is simply upholding image. And we all know that image has to be bought, paid for, and constantly maintained. Image can easily enough erode way, especially if there is little or no true substance to it. No, that is not honor and is not that to which I refer.

Honor is finding a wallet and returning it to its owner. Honor is bending down to help a child, not because Jesus tells you it is the right thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do. Honor is protecting the weak and innocent from the strong and parasitical. It would be honorable, for instance, to stand up in front of a bunch of Muslims and say "If god is good, we should not treat our women like slaves." It would be honorable, for instance, to stand up in front of a bunch of Catholics and say, "If there is a god, we're not him. Stop with this nonsense of infallible popes and priests who can forgive sins."

If there is a god, he or she is not an honorable god. If there is a plan to reality and for our lives, then we need to unambiguously know of that plan. Christ, imagine having one's own kids and not teaching them the things they need to know to exist, survive, and thrive in their own culture. Imagine making them guess at what language is being spoken. Imagine making them guess at how mathematics works. Imagine not giving children the food, safety, and protection that they need and just letting them figure things out willy-nilly for themselves. And that is precisely the situation we are in if there is the intelligent, benevolent, creator god of many religions who has a specific purpose for all of us. This is not an honorable god. We are left guessing.

Of course, it could also be the case that there is no creator of the universe in the sense of an intelligent being. In that case it could also be said that the universe has no honor. True, honor might not apply in this case, but it would still be true that there was no built-in honor to existence. And tell me if you see otherwise. One moment the planet is doing just fine, populated as it is by many thriving species of dinosaurs. And then a comet strikes and wipes it all out. Where is the honor or plan in all this? It is willy-nilly. Where is the honor or plan in the wars that continue to rage between human beings of various nations or tribes? It is all willy-nilly.

But still there can be honor, even if we have to create it. We create it by honoring truth. Even if we are cruel bastards, let's start by at least admitting this. That would be a point of honor. And perhaps from there we could do better. But if we deny this then we are a dishonorable people from the get-go. Honor is not a matter of wallpapering over our blemishes with superficial lies. That leads to the kind of honor where honor is maintained by killing someone who threatens to poke a hole in your superficial idea of honor.

So where does cynicism come into all this and why has my opinion changed? HyperDictionary defines cynicism as "a cynical feeling of distrust". It defines cynical as "believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others". That sounds like a pretty good definition to me. And yet I think the "sneering" part of it is optional. Truly I do. It is my belief that one can look at the world just as it is and decide to love other people, beings, and things. It is my belief that one does not need to construct myths and fantasies in order to do this. In fact, if you want to really engender sympathy and compassion in people, you might best make a point of showing how we are all in this together, how we all face the same problems, how we all suffer. Show them the unvarnished truth. Myths and fantasies tend to almost always be about making your group more worthy than another. And that just plays into power politics. It often does not play toward the basic sympathies and compassions that could perhaps easily enough be engendered if a little cynicism, rather than fantasy, was nourished. And I propose nourishing it most decidedly without the sneering, if at all possible. And I'll grant that this is not always possible. But do we not often also see sneers from the religious?

When I know that my fellow human beings have been thrust into this cruel game of life, the same as I have, and when I am aware of the rules under which we both play, I might then be more sympathetic toward him, even while necessarily taking precautions. But true communication takes place when the cards are laid on the table. What could be funnier sometimes then the idea of two religions getting together in some kind of ecumenical council. That's a meta-discussion about a meta-reality. It's one further step removed from the actual. Religious people (and sometimes they do, much to their credit) need to take to the Streets of Yabor and talk to god himself, as it were. I know people in real life who bury their noses in bibles. And they are spinning their wheels. If you want to know god, go into the gutter. You'll find him there. But you'll find little more than a smart stage show in the churches. So it's not that cynics possess all truth. It's just that truth requires a bit of believing the worst of human nature, because in so doing, we then begin to understand nature. And perhaps then our honor can be real.

Brother,
you have to let me write the preface of your book. I'm going to mention this post in it.

You could email this to Russell Simmons and go on def poetry tomorrow. You and yabor both.

High praise indeed. Thanks, thalo. And I shall write no book that doesn't have your words before mine. Right now I'm reading a book titled "Why God Won't Go Away," and I think it's the final piece of the puzzle, or very nearly so. It allows me to say with full confidence:

The biggest questions of life can be answered only by the methods of science. Religion and spirituality are dead ends in this regard. They are useful pursuits for making one feel better, but that's it. I can spend a lot of time explaining why this is so – and I probably will. But that's it in a nutshell.

That does not automatically mean that the metaphysics of scientific materialism is true. In fact, I think it's likely that this metaphysics is rather comically wrong. And all is not lost in the pursuit of god. It just means that for god to be real, god has to be consistent with known facts. And more importantly, god must be a discoverable fact.

Mental events are a reality unto themselves. If they can declare what is "really real" then they, by necessity, must be pointing to something objective. "Really real" is a property of the objective even while "real" is still a property of subjective mental states. The two seem to butt heads on things. But mental states themselves aren't objective. They can help to steer us toward the objective, but they can't by fiat state what is objective without any interaction with the objective. If this wasn't the case, then meditators long ago could have told us of the atom, of quarks, and of electrons just by getting deeper in touch with reality through mental states alone.

Mental states (like dreams or hallucinations) are real in the sense that we are having them. They are real in that they are subjective experiences. This isn't an inferior type of realness in my opinion. Just a different kind. The objective, by nature, means a different type of realness. Thought and awareness alone couldn't determine an ultimate realness, because thoughts and awareness aren't the type of thing that can declare "really real" all on its own. It could not make any such claim absent the objective. Thoughts (and feelings, etc.) can declare themselves to be grand things. And they are grand things. But all by themselves, completely islolated from objective reality, it does not seem they can make ultimate claims about reality. Nor does it seem likely to me that any kind of ultimate reality could therefore be composed only of mind because such a thing would lack all objectivity. It would be an existence where one thought was as true as any other. Actually, in this existence truth would have no meaning at all. An ultimate reality made only of mind would be like trying to build solid walls out of water. Maybe mass and energy is a type of frozen thought, but it still would at least be frozen. It seems to be if mind alone had preeminance (anywhere along the food chain of "ultimate" reality), with a mere thought I could change the amount of money in my bank account.

So much for the supposed truth that comes from deep meditation. Novel brain states are novel brain states and tell us of the variety and novelty of them and of what would appear to be an infinite number of subjective realities (mental states and experiences). That is sure. And this novelty is extraordinary indeed. This is an amazing reality. But I don't think logically that mind can tell us all on its own about ultimate reality. There would seem to be no ultimate reality without the objective. If this is not true then there would be no ultimate reality because any damn thing anyone wanted to think would be as true as another. And no ultimate reality can be made from this -- unless, of course, there are an infinite number of ultimate realities. Some weird-ass multi-verse theories point to stuff such as this.

Just bouncing this off some stuff I'm reading for my own benefit.

How could the writers of the gospels have missed the following which hit me like a ton of bricks last night. In the resurrection story of Jesus, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. It was early morning, and she at first did not recognize him, thinking he was the gardener. Finally she recognized him by calling him: "Rabboni", her beloved teacher. While Jesus was within the tomb he had no clothing and was only wrapped in a sheet and had a napkin covering his head. The description of the empty tomb showed the sheet and napkin folded neatly. So what, if anything, did the risen Jesus wear upon his body and where did his clothes come from as he was leaving the tomb?.

Mary Magdalene would have been aware that her beloved teacher was naked, and would have immediately wrapped around him a shawl or a robe that she could have been wearing. This would certainly have been mentioned. How could the writers have missed this important part of Jesus' first appearance to Mary Magdalene. He could not have worn the sheet he was covered with after his body was washed and oiled after his death, since same was found in the tomb, and this very same sheet is called the "Shroud of Turin", by some religious scholars.

Like Brad always says, bouncing off a few thoughts by my mentioning this little detail that was left out in the resurrection story.

quote:

How could the writers of the gospels have missed the following which hit me like a ton of bricks last night. In the resurrection story of Jesus, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. It was early morning, and she at first did not recognize him, thinking he was the gardener. Finally she recognized him by calling him: "Rabboni", her beloved teacher. While Jesus was within the tomb he had no clothing and was only wrapped in a sheet and had a napkin covering his head. The description of the empty tomb showed the sheet and napkin folded neatly. So what, if anything, did the risen Jesus wear upon his body and where did his clothes come from as he was leaving the tomb?

Every one of the gospels tells this story differently. And doesn't one of them leave the resurrection out altogether? I don't remember. But the above (and the other gospels) make sense if you think of them as stories that have been told and retold and embellished. And the gospels themselves are retellings of earlier stories. And if you try to treat the gospels as true eyewitness accounts, you run into a heap of logical problems, as you pointed out.

As thalo has said before, there are some wonderful and beautiful stories in the bible. I agree with that. But if those stories aren't literally true (although figuratively they may hold much merit), where do we go from there? Do we use the logical holes in other people's theologies to prop up our own pet theories? Again, that seems like a merry-go-round approach to me. At some point we simply have to ask the real god, as if we were playing a game of To Tell the Truth, to please stand up. And that god has never left me a little note on my refrigerator telling me of his literal, human-like existence. This god is either obstinate, too busy, unable to respond, or is not of the type as usually portrayed in the world's many religions. And boy does this make a lot of sense to me. To make an all-loving, all-powerful, personal god fit into the facts of this world we have to do a lot of shoehorning and twisting of logic. And by the time we're done making that concept of god fit we realize (if we are honest with ourselves) that this same process of shoehorning would allow for nearly any concept of god to be true.

The universe appears more and more to me to be something that erupted rather than something that was planned. That idea is much more consistent with the existing facts. And given this, I'm just not sure how to beg mercy from an elementary force-of-nature that appears to be totally unaware of my begging at all. But I'm much happier with the notion that god, if he exists, must be consistent with the facts of the world as they are known to us and become known to us. Maybe we shall discover some new and interesting facts in the future. But old stories from the bible, which made little literal sense two thousand years ago, don't get any better with age in a world in which we know much more than we ever have. Again, how shall I react to this? Shall I run screaming into the street terrified that there may be no Father supporting us in this often hellish world? No. I don't think that is necessary. Surely a belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, personal god is not the only means to navigate reality psychologically.

I think every time we appeal to the divine it's as if a little bit of our human energy leaks out. It's energy that could have been spent in the here and now dealing with issues and helping to make our life better. That's not always possible, of course. Some people are in some pretty hellish situations. If they want to do a mental escape, I'll not chide them. But what is the excuse for the rest of us? Why do we keep dabbling in notions that are so clearly fanciful? Granted, I think we're all trying to get something that we're just not getting from other human beings. But is the only choice to believe in things that cannot be shown to be true? Maybe even mediocre love and attention from real others is superior to the invented perfect love and attention of a supposed god.

I think you'll find this to be an interesting article. It links directly to a pdf.

A History of Violence by Steven Pinker. If there is such a thing as "we are all oneness," we seem to be getting there.

I think one of our greatest fears (or perhaps I'm just projecting) is that reality has no place for us. And if we look at the reality of evolution, we have good reason to fear. Evolution dispenses with life forms at the drop of a hat. It makes final and lethal judgments about who lives and who dies almost constantly. And there is no court of appeals.

So how do we beat that? With God? Oh, I wish that were so. And although such a concept can work psychologically, it doesn't if you can see through your own psychology. That's one of the drawbacks of self-awareness, of knowing thyself.

So, what is the answer? Well, roughly speaking, there may be no answer. The best anyone can perhaps come up with are general notions such as "chart your own destiny." And there's nothing particularly wrong with that notion, it's just that it doesn't come with specific and personalized instructions. But one thing that I suspect is true is that you can't think your way through it. Existence is not an intellectual puzzle to be solved, as least as far as individual lives are concerned. One has to ultimately dig deep down into one's emotions for guidance. The intellect can't do it on its own. If life *did* make some kind of ultimate sense, if we were like rats in a maze and it was at least possible to find the path out of that maze, then life would indeed be fundamentally an intellectual pursuit. But the intellect by itself is, I think, of very little worth in regards to the big picture. One can't decide what one should do, or needs to do, based on a formula or logic. There has to be an inevitable gut check or gut feeling. And I say this from long and bitter experience from doing the opposite.

And yet emotions are vulnerable to being hijacked and/or fucked up, either by others and/or by oneself. And when this happens it's somewhat like losing your radar. I can't say what happens in all cases, but I think in many cases people fall back on the intellect and become even more divorced from their gut feelings. And I think in other cases people ramp up whatever emotional responses that are still working and try to fly using that. And that can be a way that is just as blind.

When I personally look out on the landscape of life, I think all people are driven by a deep need to feel a sense of aliveness. I don't think it's the pleasure of sex, per se, that most people are looking for. I think it's that sense of vitality and aliveness. And that sense is perhaps the most addictive sense of all. It can gives us a sense of fulfillment like nothing else, but it can also have us acting quite cuckoo. I think this sense of aliveness is so powerful, and so potentially overpowering, that if you go into this game of life with your radar gummed up or jammed, it can be very difficult to find that sense of aliveness without a lot of fucked up behavior, ideas, and stuff. And it's my general theory that religion (and other methods) are, at least to some extent, an attempt to heal this fissure, to get a sense of the awe, majesty, and aliveness of existence in a way that isn't so destructive and painful.

And then there's the other side of the boulevard. And on that side is my conception of true Buddhism. Buddhism would say that it's time to stop chasing that sense of aliveness because it is a desire that can never be sated and that, in the long run, you will gain more satisfaction by learning to tame that desire. But what goes in its place? Nature abhors a vacuum, after all. Well, I would say that the typical idea of Buddhism having to do with the extinguishing of desire itself is a myth, a fallacy, and a fantasy. I would say it's really about types of desires. There is no point to living without enjoyment, and enjoyment is going to be a fulfillment of desire to some extent. Always. And if one is looking for a potentially less toxic desire (or a desire more compatible with those who have jammed radars), then the desire and pleasure of being itself is just the ticket. It's not for everyone. Heck, it may be for very few, and even then, in small doses. But it's something that at least could logically be cultivated as an alternative to forever chasing that addictive sense of aliveness. And that sense of aliveness can be so pleasurable and fulfilling, it might well be worth the pain. I think it's a tough call. I would think the ideal would be to mix them both into one's life, aliveness and being. And yet some people are so screwed up and vulnerable, it might be a matter of needing to go on the "aliveness" wagon and just kick it cold-turkey. That's surely is the point of monasteries and such.

Yeah, but I'd argue Buddhists seek the aliveness jones every bit as ferociously as anyone else. And they get it, too, through meditation. The SYMPTOMS of meditation, are just like the euphoric symptoms of drug use, or other aliveness-seeking behavior.

But seratonin EARNED is the sweetest of all, as I always say. When you--not somebody else--decides what YOU want, you go after it, and you get your aliveness reward. The hardest part of the whole process is probably FACING what it is you really want. I mean, sometimes it's tough if a construction worker has an epiphany and decides he wants to be a ballerina. He may not face it, because he knows he'll look idiotic in a tutu. But fuck it. You want what you want.

One of the reasons I like the show "Dexter" is that although the main character is a sociopath... and actual SERIAL KILLER of the highest order, he channels those things, those dark dreams as best he can toward something good and just. i.e., he only kills other serial killers. People with an aptitude for the dark or violent needn't turn instantly into horrific criminals... there are always alternatives. Violent kids can design brilliant violent video games that are works of art. They can write about violence, do paintings about violence, whatever... and it makes us all better. I know there are those that disagree with that, but... well, they're wrong, lol.

Yeah, but I'd argue Buddhists seek the aliveness jones every bit as ferociously as anyone else. And they get it, too, through meditation. The SYMPTOMS of meditation, are just like the euphoric symptoms of drug use, or other aliveness-seeking behavior.

I totally 100% agree. I don't think that's true in every case. But I think it's true often enough. Freaking and tweaking with the brain through meditation and other practices is a cottage industry. I think you have a whole lot of people (including Buddhists) fishing around for magical brain states. Such practices have the glint of legitimacy because no one is overtly popping pills. But meditating for ten hours a day and eating very little is just screwing around with drugs through the backdoor. I'm not saying this can't be fun and useful. But I would hardly call that the achievement of anything but novelty. I certainly wouldn't call it subtle knowledge.

People with an aptitude for the dark or violent needn't turn instantly into horrific criminals... there are always alternatives. Violent kids can design brilliant violent video games that are works of art. They can write about violence, do paintings about violence, whatever... and it makes us all better. I know there are those that disagree with that, but... well, they're wrong, lol.

I've never heard you put it quite like that, but when you put it quite like that, I agree. They're wrong. Check out that Pinker article regarding violence. He gives four reasons for why there is less violence today. It would make for an interesting study to see if another reason was because people have more ways of safely and benignly expressing violence than in the past. I don't know offhand if that's the case or not, but I suspect this would be so to some extent.

quote:

Originally posted by BN:
I totally 100% agree. I don't think that's true in every case. But I think it's true often enough. Freaking and tweaking with the brain through meditation and other practices is a cottage industry. I think you have a whole lot of people (including Buddhists) fishing around for magical brain states. Such practices have the glint of legitimacy because no one is overtly popping pills. But meditating for ten hours a day and eating very little is just screwing around with drugs through the backdoor. I'm not saying this can't be fun and useful. But I would hardly call that the achievement of anything but novelty. I certainly wouldn't call it subtle knowledge.

There are so many inaccuracies and misconceptions about meditation in the West that it's breathtaking (pun intended).

The original teachings have nothing about attaining "magical brain states" as a goal, nor is there a requirement for "eating very little".

There are states that the mind can be in naturally but only if we are not mired in our usual day-to-day obsessions. It is a training to slow down and observe. The "magic" or intense clarity is already there if we stop covering it up with our actions. It's like we are scared to face it, so we fidget and whistle and turn up the TV.

People go to extremes like sky diving or mountain climbing to get to situations where for a few seconds their usual thought patterns are overwhelmed into silence and they experience the moment as it is.

Meditation is not a mere feel-good exercise. Despite how it's "marketed" here.

Dwelling in those states of joy were specifically what made the pre-enlightened Guatama dissatisfied with Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta's respective meditation styles. He didn't want false mind states that don't amount to anything.

He also shunned his previous attempts at extreme ascetic lifestyle, which also doesn't work.

In Buddhism, eating is done in moderation and until one is satisfied. There is nothing about mandatory, imposed suffering or starving one's self. Only in this senses-placating day-and-age would that seem "dangerous" or "wacko".

We don't eat in this society, we gorge.

We also overdose on all the senses-tickling escapes. Ironically, all of the West (America specifically) are the ones constantly seeking magical brain states, by virtue of everyone being obsessed with drugs, sex, various excitement inducing activities, fantasy, religious zeal, material possessions, greed, rage, overindulgence in food and intoxicants...

...Show me a 10th grader that isn't in a clouded mind state already.

No, proper Buddhism (which isn't marketed here, let alone practiced) is nearly dead except in south east asia. The variants in other parts of asia are very distorted (Tibetan, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, etc.) and they are further distorted in the West, getting more watered down and compromised and stripped of any moral characteristics.

...

Have you ever gotten really bored? I mean really, at-a-stand-still, utter fucking boredom?

We all have. Probably many times in our lives. It doesn't last longer than a minute or an hour.

But that moment should teach us something, hopefully before we get distracted back into the normal escapism jetflow.

Any particular interest, habit, passion or activity is actually intrinsically un-fulfilling. The chase is better than the catch?

Ever stare at your pile for video games and not feel like playing any of them? Or stack of porn? Or cupboard full of cereal boxes? Or wall of books? DVDs? Phone list of friends? Lovers? Restaurants?

We can be dismally bored by any of our usual things. This is why we go out and find new things, which starts the cycle again...ignoring our deep down realization that these things are impermanent, unsatisfactory and we shouldn't tie our happiness to them.

Then there can be a heavy guilt for not being better able to avoid succumbing to the usual addictions...be it food or sex or drugs or "just one more level" in a video game...

But if we are hardwired for acquisition and survival and hoarding by evolution, then surely we have to give up and admit we are just animals and there is no hope?

The good news is humans can and have been able to change their addictive behavior and make better choices. And there isn't much to learn so much as unlearn.

But unlearning means letting go and that is something that most people mired in their mundane compulsions are unwilling to do.

Buddhism requires conviction, honesty, and introspection, which is why it doesn't make it intact through the West's selfish scrutiny and jaded wariness.

Here, morals are too equated with religious zealotry. But Buddhism's morality is closer to a skill, which can be practiced and honed, such that those around you will be impressed by your behavior (in the sense that they might make positive changes in themselves as a result - not that you are looking for people to be impressed by you, for status) - all without you needing to stoop to the level of sectarian preaching.

One is moral for one's own sake. It's developed from within, not forced upon you from outside.

Those moments of profound boredom are moments we should capitalize upon. We learn meditation to better watch the mind's zig-zagging from one distraction to another other, see it's greedy preferences, be aware of how intensely in-control our thoughts are of us.

Who is in charge here anyway?

There are states that the mind can be in naturally but only if we are not mired in our usual day-to-day obsessions. It is a training to slow down and observe. The "magic" or intense clarity is already there if we stop covering it up with our actions. It's like we are scared to face it, so we fidget and whistle and turn up the TV.

I think perhaps I could deconstruct Buddhism down to nothing if given half a chance. What state is natural? Well, just like "we are all one" probably has more political than factual connotations to it, what is considered natural, aware, and not mired in the day-to-day is probably quite arbitrary. I think what easily enough happens is that a culture grows up around particular ideas that then come to be considered natural, aware, and not mired in the day-to-day. They do this merely by contrast to other, perhasp more common ways of thinking and being and claim superiority merely because they are in the minority.

Not mired in the day-to-day is going to always be a relative thing. Not being mired in the day-to-day for some aboriginal hunter-gatherer is going to be different from that of a modern office worker. In a sense, it's always going to be an opposite sort of thing. Absent proof of something absolute such as a god, it's a very tough case to make that one can have absolute knowledge of something or that one's mind can be in a preferred or truer state. Our minds have been molded by natural selection over millions of years for the sole purpose of survival and reproduction. One might find some interesting sidelines and alleyways of thought and experience that are like doppelgangers hanging from the main thrust of the brain, but I would find it difficult to call these real, true, and absolute.

So, okay, Buddhism isn't about the real, true, and absolute, right? Then what is it about? I agree there are lots of misconceptions about Buddhism. But given what Buddhists themselves often think Buddhism is, I'm not shy at all about stating my opinion because I think it can't be half as bad as that of many supposedly mainstream Buddhists.

...Show me a 10th grader that isn't in a clouded mind state already.

Well, I think that's the central point. Is there some kind of special or privileged non-clouded mind state? And if we say a 10th grader's mind is already quite clouded, what state are we comparing it against? That is my point. And why is that state better? What are its specific attributes? These things I think become difficult to define in absolute terms and are therefore heavily tinged not with objective measurements but with cultural values and notions. And I'm not saying that some of these notions aren't of value, but in an absolute sense I have a hard time saying that the brain state of a ten-year-old who does little else than watch TV and play video games is less true and not as good in some absolute sense than a ten-year-old who does a bit of navel-gazing and takes nice long quiet walks in nature.

I think much of Buddhism is of a cultural or pragmatic nature and very little is based on objective facts. I'm not saying that this is bad. But it then does become problematic (even going against much of what I have already said) to come up with a true Buddhism – unless you can define some very specific attributes of what Buddhism supposedly is and how and why any of these attributes are supposedly better. Buddhism can't just be defined as something that runs counter to this current western culture of general busyness. Hey, I think one could say that all that Buddhist meditation is just another sort of busyness even if the brain state involved is not of the same type. That meditation diligence could perhaps be described as being much the same as some gamer trying to reach the 11th level of Halo.

There ain't no "true" anything. Everyone's "true" [insert name of religion here] is going to be different. There are Buddhists who would never recognize brother mighty's flavor of Buddhism even AS Buddhism. Martin Luther took a gander at Christianity and said Catholicism? That's not true Christianity, HERE'S true Christianity...

In the postmodern world, we simply need to own up to the fact that it's fair game for EVERYONE to do this. Nobody's religion is better than anybody else's. It really isn't. It's all based on the same crap and superstition as UFO guys and conspiracy theorists, and they all have a perfectly EQUAL chance of being right or wrong. We think the Hindu pantheon is charming and stupid, and yet it has the same exact chance of being true as the main monotheistic religions. Same goes for Zeus and Apollo, or Odin and Thor. I defy any one of you to prove to me conclusively that those religions or gods are in any way more invalid than the one god of Judaism or the trinity of Christianity.

It's all magic and mumbo-jumbo that human beings WANT to believe in, and so they do. You can tell them, no wait, THIS is the REAL way it is, and they can plug their ears with their fingers and go la la la la la.

I completely reject any religion that wasn't designed by me. Sure, I think it's healthy to SHARE ideas, and if I like some of yours, they may become a PART of thaloism... but the bottom line is, my reality is my reality. My line of BS is mine. I figure NO religion has ever offered me even thirty seconds of comfort or joy that I didn't provide my own self anyway, so why lie about it? Why not simply be honest that what we do... what we are WIRED to do, is find what works best for us. As fucked up and wrong as it may be, at least it's OUR fucked up and wrong.