I certainly do [experience satisfaction]. — Constance

There you have it.

Is this called qietism in the West? — Gregory

No, meditation is... I don't think I need to explain.

The balance you speak is a rationalized compromise of something foundationally pure, a Buddhist would say. — Constance

It is rational certainly, though it is not a rationalization or compromise of any sort. Earlier, you were claiming this must be approached phenomenologically. Do you not personally experience the phenomenon of satisfaction?

The world is what makes suffering — Constance

Buddha blames life, claiming that it is all disatisfactory. That is, of course, a lie. There is both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Life requires both to achieve homeostasis (the middle way).

one has to ask, liberated from what. — Constance

I think the word one is looking for is *suffering*.

The "whole" — Benj96

As opposed to the not whole?

No, the matter has to be approached phenomenologically. — Constance

The matter, like any matter, can be approached from various angles, including scientific or “materialist.”

Can you explain why you believe it has to be approached phenomenologcally?

Even to simply point out theory’s, like Kohlberg's theory of moral development, or more contemporary theories like moral foundations theory, would be a more meaningful response to the question than, and I quote, “A fully developed morality is a set of principles of conduct and behavior. It develops as one ages.”

And no, this isn’t an interview, but I like to think that we’re at least marginally more interested in truth seeking than we are in playing stupid games.

Of course this all depends on how one constructs those ideas and no doubt there is a spectrum of possibilities. — Tom Storm

As far as I can tell, all religions each claim the correct constitution.

I like the Suzuki quote. Everything changes and therefore everything is empty. Without change nothing is possible.

I don't think that any religion is about self-overcoming. I recently read a quote in a book that went something like, "If you don't master yourself someone else will be your master." I think that's true, and that religion is all about someone else being your master.

I've always been partial to cherry-picking myself, metaphorically that is.

You're claiming that the core of a religion is nihilistic in nature? :chin:

Emptiness is the core of Buddhism.

Jeeez, ya blokes from daunundda are lazy:

Meditation has been associated with relatively reduced activity in the default mode network, a brain network implicated in self-related thinking and mind wandering. However, previous imaging studies have typically compared meditation to rest despite other studies reporting differences in brain activation patterns between meditators and controls at rest. Moreover, rest is associated with a range of brain activation patterns across individuals that has only recently begun to be better characterized. Therefore, this study compared meditation to another active cognitive task, both to replicate findings that meditation is associated with relatively reduced default mode network activity, and to extend these findings by testing whether default mode activity was reduced during meditation beyond the typical reductions observed during effortful tasks. In addition, prior studies have used small groups, whereas the current study tested these hypotheses in a larger group. Results indicate that meditation is associated with reduced activations in the default mode network relative to an active task in meditators compared to controls. Regions of the default mode showing a group by task interaction include the posterior cingulate/precuneus and anterior cingulate cortex. These findings replicate and extend prior work indicating that suppression of default mode processing may represent a central neural process in long-term meditation, and suggest that meditation leads to relatively reduced default mode processing beyond that observed during another active cognitive task.

Full article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529365/

What on earth is that? — Tom Storm

Good question. It's worth looking into, imo. :grin:

Absolutely, yes, although not in a way that is likely to be agreeable to a... fetishizer.

Various studies have been conducted on the suppression of the neural default mode network.

It's a religion like any other, and like other religions, I think it's built on some valuable insights. The concept and experience of 'emptiness', for instance, has value because it can lead to well-being (when not fetishized).

How can you treat the world functionally as real while doubting what it is? — Gregory

Supposedly by realizing the that world and everything above, below, and to each side of it is empty.

Questions answered twice. — NOS4A2

True, but answered so badly as to be completely meaningless. It appears as though you cannot answer the questions. That's fine of course, but it looks rather silly to pretend that you can answer meaningfully or reasonably.

Daunting at best, for one is not just trying to calm the mind. One is quite literally attempting to erase/nullify/annihilate the world. — Constance

To annihilate the world in this sense would mean erasing our internal model of the world. Clearly, that's not the case and practice is more like temporarily bypassing particular neural networks, perhaps strengthening some and weakening others in a more permanent way.

How? — Agent Smith

Well, he makes sense in many absurd ways. Take death for instance, we’re all bound to die one day so what actual difference does it make if we die 10 minutes from now or ten years from now. It makes sense that there is no difference, absurd as that may be. Or take Sisyphus for another instance, we can imagine him happy, absurd as that may be.

Does Camus make sense? Absurdly, yes.

Just finished reading The Stranger, incidentally, and it did in fact make perfect sense to me, though I felt that Meursault, the main character the tale, was absurdly contrived.

Perhaps the State is all that holds them from returning to some state of nature, like beasts. — NOS4A2

No, not like beasts. "Civilized" societies are more bestial. Statehood only took hold, it should be noted, in places where it could not be escaped.

I feel they have the "duty" of lying... — javi2541997

I feel it’s my responsibility to try looking for the truth and see issues from all sides, challenging as that can be at times.

Our debate started because you said I cannot prove with facts or arguments that media tend to manipulate us in order to get some benefits for some. — javi2541997

I would never disagree with that. Many many forms of media try to manipulate us with the intent to benefit some and not others. I asked you who and how. Eventually, it became clear that the how is by lying and the who is anyone who lies. Politicians lie in order to manipulate others. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the press.

Nevertheless, you defended that there are some media that act with integrity. Then, you put CNN reporting Donald Trump’s lies as an example. — javi2541997

I said that politicians lying has nothing to do with the integrity press. If CNN, or anyone really, went to a press conference with Trump and he told a lie, would it show a lack of integrity to publish what he said? No, because it would simply be publishing what he said. Would it show a lack of integrity to fact-check what he said? It certainly would if the fact-checking was not factual. Would it show a lack of integrity to not fact-check what Trump said? That depends on the nature of the individual or group reporting, what their principles are and what their audience's expectations are. For example, if Breitbart started faithfully fact-checking everything that Trump said their audience would dramatically shift. They would quickly lose Trump supporters and perhaps gain some Trump critics. Nothing would prevent Breitbart from doing that, though it would no doubt be devastating to their bottom line.

Newspapers and News Networks are in business to make money and they will therefore cater to their audience.

I still think media should be impartial, objective and avoid persuading people. — javi2541997

It's not clear if you mean that their right to free speech should be curtailed or if this is just wishful thinking, like casually saying that you don't think that people should lie.

You are using CNN as an example of integrity. — javi2541997

No, I wrote: “Trump is suing CNN because they frequently reported on his lies, particularly his Big Lie.”

… what about Fox News? They are always be a media support Donald Trump. — javi2541997

Should they be forced to do otherwise?

you, that don’t like Donald Trump, say that CNN is good press because they are uncovering all Donald Trump’s shit. — javi2541997

Again, I wrote: “Trump is suing CNN because they frequently reported on his lies, particularly his Big Lie.”

I did not say whether or not frequently reporting on Trump’s lies was a good thing.

You’re essentially saying that you can control people by lying to them. That has nothing to do with the integrity of the press. Indeed, Trump is suing CNN because they frequently reported on his lies, particularly his Big Lie.

Shouldn’t news networks be allowed the freedom that you have?
— praxis

Absolutely. But... are they really free? — javi2541997

So far you have neglected to explain how they are not free. You claim that politicians control newspapers and journalists but fail to explain how they control them. Is it by bribery or blackmail? Do gangs of armed thugs force them to do whatever politicians want? You also mention “ghost writers” who work for “powerful groups”. This is all meaningless without facts or anything substantive to support your claims.

If a news outlets wants to hire ghost writers they are free to do so. I’m not aware of any laws against hiring ghost writers. Ghost writers can also be easily fired, unless they have a strong union or something.

So you don’t know who they are or how they control the news and yet have no problem with defaming Breitbart on a public forum. Shouldn’t news networks be allowed the freedom that you have?

Anyway, getting back to the topic, I think that @introbert may have been attempting to introduce the concept of presentism to the issue, thought better of it, and then wisely chose to abandon the discussion. Presentism is the uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

Back in the day slavery and genocide were a-okay, or so say the anti-presentists. Everyone was doing it, and doing it was legal. It wasn't a-okay with those enslaved or in the process of being slaughtered, of course, and in fact we modern folk still value freedom and life. Imagine that, after two hundred years of progress and change, people still value freedom and life. The more things change the more they stay the same, it seems, doesn't it?

hooker costume — Merkwurdichliebe

Where do you live where streetwalkers can afford an outfit like that?

If you control the press then it’s no longer free though, right?
— praxis

Exactly and both political parties are guilty. — javi2541997

Maybe an example will help clarify what we are each trying to convey. Are you familiar with the Breitbart News Network? It's an American far-right syndicated news, opinion, and commentary website. You seem to be suggesting that a far-right party controls Breitbart. Who would that be exactly and how do they enforce their control?

If you control the press then it’s no longer free though, right?

If it’s serving then why is Trump grumpy about it?

Wait, what? Trump was defeated? I thought he “lost” because of voter fraud.

So the press should be firmly regulated by the government? :grimace:

Trump sues CNN for saying mean things about him.

I guess mere words matter after all, aye @NOS4A2 ? :lol:

I don't know you well enough to say something that might be understandable to you… — introbert

I’m fluent in English, if that’s helpful for you to know about me.

What most interests me is the part where you touch on “only now being looked at in a negative light”. What’s that about? Can you please elucidate on that?

the possession of artifacts held by colonial powers of colonized peoples are only now being looked at in a negative light — introbert

Your meaning is not clear. Could you please rephrase this for added clarity?

I think the topic here is over thought.

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. — Deus

It's hard enough to take this seriously without half-baked jokes being thrown into the mix.

What is her art? She is a musician right? Does she always make music about such a topic? Is she particularly political? — I like sushi

I gave my impression of her as a performer or brand, if you will.