… value desperation … — Constance

To be as succinct as I can, desperation is reckless in nature, leading to rash and extreme behavior. Such behavior is quite often less than exemplary in good moral character.

Desperate people are easy to lead though, the more desperate the better.

Any thoughts so far? — Constance

I'm being patient. :smile:

To your mind, have you made an argument for why you think God (or religion, including Buddhism) is all about our ethics or are you ignoring my question?

... metaethical... — Constance

I do not think that word means what you think it means. "What-to-do questions" are questions of normative ethics and not metaethical. In any case, you've made an argument?

anthropomorphic, meaning what we call perceptually "out there" cannot be removed from "in here". — Constance

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

God is all about our ethics... — Constance

I strongly disagree. Can you make an argument for why you think God (or religion, including Buddhism) is all about our ethics?

The existence of God is controversial also, nevertheless belief in God is kind of a prerequisite in many religions. Maybe there are secular theist too though. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Buddhists do not consider liberation a temporary mental state. That's pretty clear, isn't it? If a person is 'reborn' in any sense, then according to a Buddhist it is because of their karma, which means that they are not liberated.

That's one, perhaps simplistic, interpretation of the meaning of nirvana. Buddhists have also said that nirvana just is samsara. — Janus

Well, I've never heard of a Buddhist heaven, high up in the clouds or whatever, so nirvana must be right here, neck deep in the midst of all the shit. Where else would it be?

Must it be the same for all, in any case?

If we're talking about Buddhist Nirvana, it must only be what they claim it is. If we're not talking about Buddhist Nirvana, then we are completely free to confer whatever grand and nuanced meanings we wish to our uncanny experiences.

You believe that nirvana is merely an uncanny experience? Like seeing a ghost or something?
— praxis

Not purporting to answer for Constance but I'd say it's an altered state of consciousness, not a matter of seeing something uncanny (like a ghost) but seeing ordinary things uncannily. — Janus

A brain state, yes. A suppressed DMN, to be precise. I don't think that uncanny is a good descriptor though because it means something strange, particularly in an unsettling way. That's why I mentioned a ghost sighting. Seeing a ghost would be both strange and unsettling. Nirvana, on the other hand, means liberation from the cycle of life and death and perfect happiness. Quite unlike a ghost sighting.

Also, if Constance is talking about a transient experience then they are not talking about Buddhist nirvana and the liberation from karma and the cycle of life and death.

Nirvana - liberation and not 'unsettling'

Constance's uncanny experience - unsettling and of unknown duration

Affective apprehension: what is nirvana? And what is liberation/enlightenment? The epoche is a method, so what happens when thought encounters the world, and is reduced to the bare perceptual away from the apperceptual (sp?)? The self becomes free. It is not just an intellectual movement, but an experience. Enlightenment is the wonderful feeling of experiencing the world free of implicit "knowledge claims, keeping in mind that knowledge never was just a conceptual tag hung on a thing; it is a conditioned response to the world established since the time of infancy, and it is settled deep into experience as a default acceptance of things. Release from this is not just a nullity, though there is much that is nullified. It is an uncanny experience of extraordinary dimensions. — Constance

You believe that nirvana is merely an uncanny experience? Like seeing a ghost or something?

To put it quite plainly, the practical benefit of such a pursuit is simply the reduction of anxiety, existential and others sorts. The ‘cessation of suffering’ that the Buddha promises is a fat carrot that religious types find irresistible .

Your subjective experiences of satisfaction are essential, not simplistic. Again, you are free to confer whatever nuanced meaning you like to your experiences of satisfaction, or dissatisfaction. That’s up to you. Religions confer all sorts of grand and nuanced narratives to the world and our essential experiences.

But it shows none of the nuance of the brief review of the matter I provided above. Yours is a manichean pov, a reduction to a two sided simplicity of something that is not really simple. I took t that you didn't really read what I wrote and so, oh well. — Constance

At the start you wrote “the matter has to be approached phenomenologically” so that’s what I’m doing. You are entirely free to confer whatever meaning you like to the phenomenon of your subjective experiences of satisfaction. I’ve not made any judgment of it, simplified it, or polarized your meaning.

Oh. Well, thank you very much! — Constance

It’s not a complement. I merely point out that you subjectively experience the phenomena of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and this is evidence that life is not dissatisfaction but both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If your body is dehydrated you will suffer the dissatisfaction of thirst and should you be fortunate enough to find water and drink your thirst will be satisfied. This isn’t “materialist” science. It is phenomena that you subjectivity experience.

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.