The purpose of religion is to supply meaning. A system of meaning binds a community in common values and purpose. That is its essential purpose and anything else like 'true peace', salvation, or the experience of emptiness is entirely optional. — praxis

I'm beyond the end of my patience trying to explain myself on this subject. However, it is one of the few threads on this site that addresses a subject I actually care about, which is why I've been so prolific on this thread. But, I don't think I can do any more of this, so I think I will take a break and listen to what others have to say :)

I hesitate to poke my nose into this argument but each of us has personal outlooks that may disagree with what billions of others my believe. Sites devoted to interesting individual ways of discerning reality are devoted to many odd ways to view the universe. It is no insult to disagree with common opinions and should not raise problems. Obviously any opinions should be questioned insofar as their validity is concerned but I doubt insult is useful.

3
I hesitate to poke my nose into this argument but each of us has personal outlooks that may disagree with what billions of others my believe. Sites devoted to interesting individual ways of discerning reality are devoted to many odd ways to view the universe. It is no insult to disagree with common opinions and should not raise problems. Obviously any opinions should be questioned insofar as their validity is concerned but I doubt insult is useful. — Jan Sand

This is a public forum and you're welcome to poke your nose anywhere you want. As I said before, if you don't use quotes and links it's really hard to know what specifically you are responding to. I'll assume you are responding to the general tenor of the discussion between Aurora and me.

Aurora and I had discussions on another thread before this one. On that thread and this one, I have responded harshly to what I see as the contemptuous and condescending way he talks about other people - the general public in the previous thread and people who have different views on religion than he does in this one. In those discussions my comments have been about what he has written and not him personally.

I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment.

Isn't it implied that pretty much everything said here is an opinion?

.
Much or most of it is. But often we state true facts here.

Interesting that you should ask, because my metaphysics is an Idealism based on abstract if-then facts.

(Below, I mention Michael Faraday's mention of that sort of metaphysics.)
.
I guess most of what’s said here is in the form of stating a fact. …and a (maybe large?) percentage of those statements of fact are incorrect. In that case, instead of stating a true fact, they merely indicate an opinion—expressed in the form of a (incorrect) factual-statement.
.
The term “fact” has been defined here as “a state-of-affairs”. It could also be called “an aspect of how things are”.
.
I define a statement as “an utterance (maybe true, maybe false) about a fact”.
.
In metaphysics, it’s certainly possible to state undeniable, uncontroversial facts.
.
In fact, I claim that my metaphysics is entirely uncontroversial. I state it as facts.
.

Seems like common sense to me, more than philosophy. (Actually, more generally, isn't anything anyone ever says, just an opinion ?

.
Certainly. In this forum too. It’s my opinion that there’s reincarnation, but I can’t prove it, and I can’t call it a fact.
.
I try to say when I’m only expressing an opinion.
.
And religion is about feeling or faith, not about provable facts, provable in a debate. My feeling that there’s good intent, benevolence, behind what is, is a factual impression that I don’t doubt. …but not one that I can prove to someone else, or an issue for debate.
.

I mean ... what is a "fact" exactly ?

.
A fact is a state of affairs, an aspect of how things are.
.
(“Things” are whatever can be referred to.)
.

If we had clear facts, we wouldn't need this forum. But, that is a separate debate.)

.
Well, one use of this forum is the pointing-out of facts. But, of course, also the sharing of opinions, speculations and conjectures (labeled as such).
.

I mean, this is not a forum for experts, is it ? This is a forum for laypeople to share ideas and thoughts, isn't it ?

.
Yes. But, in my opinion, the authority of academic “experts” doesn’t count for much in philosophy. My impression is that there’s a lot more value in the discussions here, than in what we get from academic philosophers…who are at least partly motivated by the “Publish-Or-Perish” incentive. …resulting in endless reams of vague inconclusive debate and speculation. Chalmers, if I remember correctly, admitted that there’s no indication that the (ridiculous) “Hard Problem Of Consciousness” will be solved anytime soon, because no progress has been evident over the past millennia.
.
And didn’t Wittgenstein renounce academic philosophy as the BS that (in my opinion) it is?
.

If that is the case, isn't it implied that most of what people say on this forum is not a fact ?

.
Certainly much of it isn’t fact. …even when stated as fact.
.
But equally certainly, some of it is fact.
.

If, by default, everything said here was a fact, (which seems astronomically unlikely)…

.
Agreed.
.

, there would be no real discussion. Just a stating of facts.

.
But that can be useful discussion, because someone might tell about a fact, regarding a matter that others haven’t looked at much. Someone might emphasize an issue or a fact that hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves.
.
For example, in 1844, the famous physicist Michael Faraday said that there’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of relations among logical and mathematical facts.
.
I say that what he said is clearly factual.
.
My wording is that there’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts (logical and mathematical) about hypotheticals.
.

The assumption that whatever anyone says is fact (unless explicitly stated), to me, seems like it could really open up a can of worms. Meaning ... do I need to qualify my responses, each time, as opinions ?

.
Not when it’s clear from context. But in metaphysical debates, facts should be distinguished from opinions or speculations.
.
Of course when someone states something as fact, it might be a fact, or it might just be an incorrect opinion. If the speaker knows that it might not be a fact, then it should be labeled as opinion (if strongly-felt) or speculation (if not as strongly-felt)
.

This is an honest question. If I need to qualify each response, perhaps I need to have a pre-defined signature that will act as a disclaimer, to avoid this kind of unpleasantness each time.

.
In this instance, regarding the argument between you and T. Clark, you did indicate that what you said was opinion.
.
It’s often clear from context, but in metaphysics or physics, the distinction should be explicit.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I have responded harshly to what I see as the contemptuous and condescending way he talks about other people - the general public in the previous thread — T Clark

I do agree that my referring to the masses as "idiots" was condescending ... no question about it. Perhaps, I should have used different words. I can see how this might have offended you and others. Thank you for the honest feedback. It has been noted, and I hope to do better next time.

I like a lot of what you have to say (in general ... also counting previous posts I've come across by you). There is a lot of depth and substance to what you write, which I find generally lacking in posts here (and elsewhere).

It is easy to write a totally meaningless post with big fancy words and quotes from famous people (and I find a lot of folks doing that), but not as easy to write in a way that demonstrates a true/deep understanding of whence those words originate.

I'm curious about your background ... occupation / life phase ... answering is totally optional, of course :)

Thanks for the response to my questions about fact/opinion. It's nice to have crossed paths with you here.

And BTW, I kind of plagiarized you earlier in this thread (maybe 2 pages back). Specifically, your phrase "perpetual postponement of satisfaction". I gave you credit as best as I could, not knowing the proper "format".

Although I have indicated in a general sense how I structure my understanding of my consciousness and how it relates to what I call external reality and the artificial simplified internal reality manufactured by the central nervous system to deal with the pressures and dangers of surviving in the real world, it’s important to comprehend the fundamental nature of the total creature I call myself.

The entirety is quite complex. My inherited DNA deals with living cells and as I developed from a single cell the various varieties of different kinds of cells were produced to manufacture a cooperative community that could deal with basic necessities to process food for structure and nourishment and produce the nervous system to relate to outside demands on survival. The brain is intimately connected to all parts of the body and has automatic functional relationships with everything. It has established patterns out of its genetic inheritance which generally is below the level of consciousness although signals, such as hunger, thirst, pain etc. do prompt the consciousness to react. Beyond this the body welcomes very large numbers of non-human cells which have been domesticated to aid in basic functions known as the microbiome which also can influence the emotional and other basic reactions of the central nervous system. Although all parts contribute their necessary functions to the whole, people in general accept the false premise that the consciousness is the central controlling focus of the totality whereas it is just one small aspect of brain function which is designed to operate within the immensely simple model of the outer world . This does not denigrate its importance, which is great, but places it properly in its relationship to the whole.

Since the advent of the computer which deals with many of the same problems as the living brain, the similarity has led to speculations as to how similar the digital machine is to a thinking brain. Experts in the field have even proposed that a human mind might eventually be transposed into a computer so that it could continue to live within the machine far beyond the life of a normal human. As fascinating as this concept might be it seems to me that it neglects very basic differences between a computer as it is now constructed and a living animal such as ourselves.

I am quite old and my wife died some time ago and almost all of my friends and relatives also have ceased to exist. But all of these people still exist in my memories. And these memories are quite different from the kind of data storage one places in a computer. As an artist and a designer I deal, to a large degree, in various kinds of patterns. And it seems to me that the brain in general seems devoted to pattern recognition, construction, and association. But these patterns are not just visual, they contain input from all the body sense mechanisms plus associations from emotions and past experience. And beyond that there are patterns dealing with time and procedures. The sense patterns are abstracts of reality in color, shape, motion, etc. and the can associate across senses such associating numbers with colors, sounds and other ways to form very complex memories.

The fundamental difference between computer data and living memories is that, in life, each pattern and pattern template is a living cell function and possesses a self- coherence which remains active as a living thing continuously below the level of consciousness. This living data therefore is more like a zoo than a library. In effect, my wife still is quite alive within my brain structure and when I dream of her all the characteristics that I have acquired of her when she was alive reacts with me in my dreams, which is radically different from the way computer data is obtained and stored. And not just people, but all brain data is dynamic and makes associations and changes below my level of consciousness. Thus, a brain is quite different from a computer as they are now constructed. I have no idea as to whether data can be made to come alive in this manner within computer technology. It probably would entail all data to contain active algorithms in rather special ways that probably would make the computer unpredictable in the same way that people are unpredictable and most likely would be an unsatisfactory tool.

Sure, fine, but there's a difference between conceptual understanding and experience. Meditation or other forms of manipulating awareness are designed to experience this lack of separation and transcend our own worldview or interest, and view the world from a vantage point that is, in Thomas Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular." — praxis

I experience not being separate by simply eating and breathing - consuming things that are not me so that I may continue being me.

I don't understand what a view from nowhere means. It seems like a contradiction as a view is always from somewhere which is why it is subjective in the first place. Views are subjective because they only contain a certain amount of information about the world as opposed to all of it (which would be an objective view, or a view from everywhere). A more objective view (a view from everywhere) is what I try to attain in my thinking.

I'm curious about your background ... occupation / life phase ... answering is totally optional, of course :)

.
Life-Phase: Age 72
.
Retired
.
Background: As my mother used to say, "Don't get me started." :D
.
Theist. Vedantist.
.
I’ve like science, but I disagree with the religion of Science-Worship.
.
My metaphysics differs from those of the 3 usual versions of Vedanta, but they differ greatly from eachother too.
.
I've never understood the writing that I've encountered about Buddhist metaphysics, but there are evidently some mutually-conflicting versions (as is the case with Vedanta too).
.
But I'm not criticizing or disagreeing with Buddhist metaphysics. To the extent that I understand what's said about its metaphysics, the differences seem likely to be largely definitional.
.
Buddhists have a good point, when saying that we aren't the person that we were at an earlier time of life. I don't know the person I was, in elementary school, junior-high, or highschool. ...when it comes to how I arrived at and justified the misguided motivations, values, and purposes, and view about my life.
.
(…but I suspect that I had lots of help from parental, cultural and schoolground bullying.)
.
Well, because I’m not the person I was then, then of course I needn’t blame myself for “my” role in what happened.
.
Likewise, because that person wasn’t me, then I’m not the one who missed-out because of all that.
.
Saying that reminds me of Quintero, in Enemy of the State, when he said, “That ain’t me.”, when shown a video of him violating his conditions of probation by meeting with labor-officials.
.
Everything that happened previous is just a “given”, not meaningfully evaluatable as good or bad, loss or gain, or regrettable.

In a meaningful sense, the situation now is all.

It seems to me that Tolle emphasized that too--regret about the past, as well as postponement to the future.
.
In the song “Rock & Roll Gypsies”, they say, “The winner takes nothing, and the loser gets all that remains.”
.
Nisargadatta said, “From the point of view of the sage, nothing has ever happened.”
.
I wasn’t going to get into background, but, once I get started…
.
But anyway, even though we aren’t the same person we were at a much earlier time of life, isn't it obvious that, as a practical matter, in a meaningful sense, we're the same person we were yesterday?
.
I don't claim to know enough about Buddhism to know whether they're saying that, metaphysically, there isn’t anything, but there’s no reason to believe that there’s anything by the Materialist's meaning of something.
.
But I'm not a Materialist, and even though there’s no reason to believe that there metaphysically (discussabley, describably) is anything other than insubstantial, ethereal abstract facts, that structure or system of abstract facts is a person’s life-experience story and the possibility-world in which it’s set. I don’t call that “nothing”.
.
So maybe my view that there isn't just "nothing" gives me more in common with Vedantists than Buddhists, as regards metaphysics. But I admit almost complete ignorance about Buddhist metaphysics.
.
The subject of facts is of interest to me, because obviously there are inevitable abstract facts. For instance:
.
1)
.
If all slithytoves are brillig, and all jabberwockeys are slithytoves, then all jabberwockies are brillig.
.
That inevitable abstract if-then fact is equally true if none of the slithytoves are brillig, or if none of the jaberwockeys are slithytoves, or if there are no jaberwockeys or slithytoves.
.
An abstract logical if-then fact can be true even if its premise is false (of course then its conclusion isn’t true). …or even if the things referred to in the premise and conclusion don’t objectively exist.
.
An abstract if-then fact need only have validity or reality in its own context. An inter-referring system of such facts needn’t have validity, existence or reality other than in its own inter-referring context.
.
2)
.
Definitions:
.
Let “1” mean the multiplicative identity, specified in the multiplicative identity axiom of the real numbers.
.
Let “2” mean 1+1
.
Let “3” mean 2+1
.
Let “4” mean 3+1
.
“If ” premise:
.
If the additive associative axiom of the real numbers is true…
.
”Then “ conclusion:
.
…then 2+2=4.
-------------------------------
.
That, too, is an inevitable abstract if-then fact.
.
A hypothetical set of physical-quantity variable-values, and a hypothetical physical law consisting of a hypothetical relation among those variable-values, are parts of the “if “ premise of an abstract if-then fact.
.
…except that one of those variable-values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
A mathematical theorem is an abstract if-then fact whose “if “ premise includes, but needn't be limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).
.
There are also infinitely-many systems of inter-referring abstract if-thens like those. Inevitably, one of those infinitely-many logical systems has events and relations that are identical to those of our physical universe. There’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than that.
.
That metaphysics is based on inevitable abstract logical facts. None of its statements have anything to disagree with. It’s a completely uncontroversial metaphysics, and I state it as fact.
.
Regarding the matter of facts, this discussion got me started on something that I have a lot to say about.
.
Michael Ossipoff








.

The consciousness that animates every living form is eternal, but the form that it animates is temporary. So, when one is born, it is the one (eternal) consciousness manifesting as a form, but when one dies, the consciousness doesn't die with that form. In other words, you can think of the form as a channel for the consciousness to pass through. So, each form gets an opportunity to "live" through that consciousness. — Aurora

We are all one consciousness. That's one helluva self contradictory entity. Insanity.

If this sounds like bullshit, ok, it is not the easiest thing to see.

Just try this one thing ... let's say that someday, you are overwhelmed with anger or some powerful negative feeling/emotion, and suddenly you find yourself stepping back from that emotion and seeing it instead of getting lost in it ... just as an observer, without any judgment of thought ... totally neutral ... and the turmoil suddenly turns to peace. What is that place you are watching those negative emotions from ? Is it the mind ? Or is it something outside the mind/body ? — Aurora

When we think about our own mental ongoings, we're not watching them, unless we're watching ourselves on something previously recorded. In all cases of thinking about our own thought, belief, and emotions, the place we're watching from is wherever we happen to be at that time. If I'm at the grocery, then that's the place I'm watching from. If I'm at a club, then that's the place. If I get outraged at the club, but do not really think much about how and/or why I became outraged until after I'm at my friend's house the next day, then I'm 'watching' from my friends house.

Or, let's say you find yourself staring at something beautiful, like a sunset or a bird on a tree branch, and suddenly, you find yourself at total peace. There is no mind involved, no body involved. Just a perceiving without imposing any ideas/thoughts on it. What is it that perceives? — Aurora

How on earth do you expect to justify claiming that you can use parts of your body(physiological sensory perception) to stare at birds and sunsets without a body? No body, no physiological sensory perception. No physiological sensory perception, no eyes. No eyes, no staring at anything.

Sometimes, even after a loved one dies (or simply leaves, as in a breakup), the survivors say, "I still feel his presence around the house." The form is dead/gone, so what is it that lingers ? (And no, I'm not alluding to some horror movie crap). — Aurora

Memories. Thoughts. Beliefs. Feelings. Longing.

What this is really about (and spirituality, in general) is giving a person a new perspective from which to look at life and the world. One might think that this esoteric abstract bullshit has no practical purpose, and that it is just for the books. On the contrary, when you are able to distance yourself from your mind and body, when you realize that your identity is no longer just your mind and body and other forms like material possessions (which is to say, how good you look, how much you know, how much money you make, etc, etc, etc), think about how much it simplifies your life and how much peace is to be had from that realization. — Aurora

One need not invoke the supernatural and/or mysticism in order to change their own personal value system. That's all the above amounts to. A change in what one finds the most important. That change doesn't require invoking and/or believing in the supernatural. Ockham's Razor applies.

Have you ever planned a kickass vacation with a lot of great anticipation ? And then, when the vacation actually came, it sucked ? Or you were anticipating a great date with a hot new girl/guy ? And it turned out to be crap ? Think about it for a minute - what does that prov ?

You enjoyed the anticipation of the future event, not the future event itself, and you enjoyed that anticipation now. You cannot plan to be happy :) ... for the simple reason that you cannot predict the exact circumstances or "form" a future moment will take. You can only react to the form of the present moment (by being happy or sad or whatever). So, you cannot plan to be happy in the future, because the future may involve a divorce, bankruptcy, an earthquake, or a black ant in your food (or a million other things you cannot possibly foresee).

If you really want to "plumb the depths", ask yourself what real happiness is. Is it the temporary ego satisfaction that comes from a new car or a raise at work or how about a sexy new partner ? Or is it something deeper. And, if it is something deeper, does it need to be planned for ? Or enjoyed now ? — Aurora

So, your argument is that we cannot plan for happiness, because we cannot predict all future events?

That's bullshit. Planning involves expectation. Sometimes expectation is met. Sometimes it's not. When we're lucky, reality exceeds our expectations. Either way, we can plan for happiness, despite the likelihood of unexpected things happening.

Views are subjective because they only contain a certain amount of information about the world as opposed to all of it (which would be an objective view, or a view from everywhere). — Harry Hindu

I believe views are also subjective because they’re predisposed to particular objectives. Thought and it’s concepts are goal oriented. A view from nowhere has no purpose.

To reiterate, the point of this experience is essentialy to relieve existential anxiety. Though I’ve only achieved a very shallow experience of it to date, I believe it works as promised. I imagine there are many people, perhaps you for instance, who are not in need of this relief.

I wouldn't have the nerve to tell someone they're wrong and that I'm the one who knows what they really should believe — T Clark

Is that not what you did with what you have expressed here?

That's bullshit — creativesoul

So is your expectation that I will respond to (or even read the entirety of) such a post from you :)

Don't bother responding to any of my posts again. You're the newest member on my shit list. Congratulations ! :)

It might help to flesh out your ideas if you interact with others. creativesoul is no intellectual slouch.

It might help to flesh out your ideas if you interact with others. creativesoul is no intellectual slouch. — praxis

I responded to you because you responded to me in a calm manner that facilitated a discussion as opposed to just shooting down everything and writing as if you were yelling. If someone responds like you did, I'm happy to respond back and exchange ideas. If not, I've got better things to do.

I can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she writes ... that includes the choice of words, the tone, etc. I can tell when a piece of prose has substance/depth and when it's just someone trying desperately to sound intelligent :) I can also tell when someone is in a desperate emotionally supercharged struggle to prove himself/herself "right". I instinctively stay away from such people, because they're "unconscious" - completely immersed in ego. I don't need their drama.

And no thanks, I'm quite confident that creativesoul has nothing to teach me. I'm not a complete idiot. I'm not missing anything

I say what I have to say about this, not just as some obscure theory I read/heard somewhere and arbitrarily decided is true. I'm quite a practical person; theory doesn't appeal to me much without practical application. So, whatever I speak about here, almost always, is the result of direct practical application in my own life, i.e. based on my experience. Although I have been greatly influenced by one spiritual teacher, I don't take everything he says for granted ... some of what he teaches proved true in my life and some didn't. Needless to say, I'm talking about the part that proved true for me. — Aurora

Did you say to whom you are referring somewhere in this thread or did I miss it?

Did you say to whom you are referring somewhere in this thread or did I miss it? — Buxtebuddha

Oh, I mentioned it here and there, but the guy I'm referring to is Eckhart Tolle.

I didn’t say anything about teaching.

I find that discussing things in a forum like this one can help clarify ideas and concepts that may be challenging to grasp or articulate. You mentioned frustration in explaining your ideas. This is a sign that you don’t have a good grasp of them.

Oh, I mentioned it here and there, but the guy I'm referring to is Eckhart Tolle. — Aurora

I've heard of him quite a bit but have never read him. I suppose that I should? Is he more insightful than the first Eckhart? O:)

This is a sign that you don’t have a good grasp of them. — praxis

Before this gets out of hand, I will respectfully, and completely, disagree, and move on with my evening :)

I've heard of him quite a bit but have never read him. I suppose that I should? Is he more insightful than the first Eckhart? — Buxtebuddha

Hmm, I didn't know the first Eckhart, but I'm pretty sure Eckhart Tolle named himself after Meister Eckhart. Tolle's original name was Ulrich Leonard Tolle, which became Eckhart Tolle.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to the same guy (first Eckhart) that Tolle looks up to.

Yes, ET is quite insightful. I got a lot from listening to him. Have you read/listened to him too ?

Then with the power of now, we agree to disagree.

Then with the power of now, we agree to disagree. — praxis

Yes :D

No. Is he new agey? I don't pay that stuff much attention.

No. Is he new agey? I don't pay that stuff much attention. — Buxtebuddha

I can already tell that you probably won't like him.

I have no idea what "new age" is, but he makes a lot of sense to me. He's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

So is your expectation that I will respond to (or even read the entirety of) such a post from you :) — Aurora

I hold no firm expectations regarding this.

Don't bother responding to any of my posts again. You're the newest member on my shit list. Congratulations ! :)

Thank you. Rest assured, the pleasure's all mine.

I can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she writes ... that includes the choice of words, the tone, etc. I can tell when a piece of prose has substance/depth and when it's just someone trying desperately to sound intelligent :) I can also tell when someone is in a desperate emotionally supercharged struggle to prove himself/herself "right". I instinctively stay away from such people, because they're "unconscious" - completely immersed in ego. I don't need their drama.

And no thanks, I'm quite confident that creativesoul has nothing to teach me. I'm not a complete idiot. I'm not missing anything — Aurora

More bullshit. One cannot tell another's emotional state by virtue of written word alone.

I believe views are also subjective because they’re predisposed to particular objectives. Thought and it’s concepts are goal oriented. A view from nowhere has no purpose. — praxis

I think you mean that one needs to detach their emotional investments from what they experience. That would be a more objective outlook if one could attain such a thing.

Views have a purpose and that is to provide knowledge of how things are at the moment. If one already knows how things are in all places and at all times, then one wouldn't need a view at all, would they?

To reiterate, the point of this experience is essentialy to relieve existential anxiety. Though I’ve only achieved a very shallow experience of it to date, I believe it works as promised. I imagine there are many people, perhaps you for instance, who are not in need of this relief. — praxis

Why do you think that there are people that need it and those that don't? What is the difference in those people? What is the difference in those being offended by being called names, and those that aren't? I think you will find the answer to both questions to be the same.

One of the puzzles about the nature of reality as presented by an Einsteinian view of this universe of three space dimensions and one of time was the lack of nailing down the most important aspect of existence which we all experience which is the sense of the present time where everything seems to happen. In general, most people describe this as a flow of time where we each are fixed in temporal dimension and time flows past. Einstein indicated that our sense should be that we move forward in a fixed dimension of time. I have questioned scientific sources as to the sense of the present time and how we feel we move towards the future and the uniform response I have gotten is that it is an illusion, that the sense of existing in the present time is an illusion. Since the present is the most real thing I know, this explanation is most unsatisfactory. But this discussion is primarily about awareness and if nothing else, awareness is primarily concerned with present time.

In my previous comments I have noted that the self is a mechanism of the brain which exists within the artificial construction that the brain has assembled out of inputs from the sense apparatus doctored to be simplified to meet the needs of survival. The brain continuously updates this construction to match the new material from the sense apparatus but it is this instrument of the self which seems to generate the illusive present time which has puzzled me. Awareness, then, is the vital illusion of present time.

I think you mean that one needs to detach their emotional investments from what they experience. That would be a more objective outlook if one could attain such a thing. — Harry Hindu

I'm drawing a distinction between what I'll call the 'experience of emptiness' and general contemplative practices. Contemplative practice may include mindfulness, which is practicing an objective awareness of whatever is going on both internally (including emotions) and extenrally. Mindfully observing emotions doesn't lessen their intensity, if fact they may feel more intense, but they may pass more readily and are less likely to lead to maladaptive emotional responses.

An experience of emptiness is simply a particular brain state. It may be arrived at through other means than meditation. For example:

Views have a purpose and that is to provide knowledge of how things are at the moment. — Harry Hindu

"How things are" depends on our values, intents, and purposes, doesn't it? If our purpose is to acquire knowledge of how things are in the moment, we're doing that for a reason, and our minds are unconsciously screening a great deal of the information for relevancy.

If one already knows how things are in all places and at all times, then one wouldn't need a view at all, would they? — Harry Hindu

Rather, I suppose they would have all views. I can't imagine how that's possible.

Why do you think that there are people that need it and those that don't? What is the difference in those people? What is the difference in those being offended by being called names, and those that aren't? I think you will find the answer to both questions to be the same. — Harry Hindu

I think it's much more complex than what you may be suggesting here. Whatever it is that makes a person more or less prone to existential anxiety may have little to do with their self-confidence or emotional intellegence.

Rather, I suppose they would have all views. I can't imagine how that's possible. — praxis

Well, yeah - a view from everywhere. I don't know how that would possible either, just a like a view from nowhere. So it seems to me that to talk about view from nowhere and from everywhere is complete nonsense. All that makes sense is a view from somewhere at some moment. A view of emptiness is a still a view from somewhere, as I'm not viewing emptiness at the same time you are. In other words, you are simply looking somewhere that I'm not, from somewhere that I am not.

I think it's much more complex than what you may be suggesting here. Whatever it is that makes a person more or less prone to existential anxiety may have little to do with their self-confidence or emotional intellegence. — praxis

Genes and upbringing, then?