True, killing the child is bad, no way around it. Brilliant. But could it be that that does not illustrate that the Ethical/Moral isn't entirely a human construction(s), nor that there is an inherent to the Universe, and absolute Ethical/Moral? But rather, the universal antipathy to killing a child is seated in our organic natures. Sure, our morality was constructed on the Foundations of the first dozen times we began re-presenting that organic drive/anti-drive against infanticide. But the universal and absolute--which, you sold me, I totally agree--antipathy is Nature in this particular case, not Ethics. — ENOAH

Well, you'd have to put aside ideas like our organic nature, as well as any naturalistic assumptions about the world. It's not that these are not true, but that the one thing that demonstrates the validity of moral realism is the phenomenon itself, not the historical, evolutionary, scientific framework we are so used to putting things in as a kind of default explanatory setting. One simply stands before the world and examines the presupposed underpinnings that general knowledge claims never notice. So, without going into paragraphs about this, just consider: there you are, and you put your finger into a flame and keep it there, just to be a good scientist and observe pain objectively. You are not interested in how the nerves deliver signals to neurochemistry, or the evolutionary advantages of having such a system, or the evolutionary psychology that might find young life most precious. All of these are important ways to interpret the world, but here, we are isolating the phenomenon as a distinct classificatory distinction not at all unlike what, say, a geologist does when she describes a sample of quartz, first looking to the distinguishing qualities, then aligning them with the standard model.

So the first order of business is simple description: what IS pain, examined like this? All other classificatory modes in abeyance. Observe your finger. The burning finger, the destruction of tissue, the auto-response to pull away, and so on, but none of this quite exhausts the phenomenon before you. Something more than the empirical observations is there, in the pain. One needs no convincing of this, and it is a confusion to insist on such a thing, for this classification is the moral dimension of pain: the bad. The Bad defies reduction to or references to other things. It is a stand alone quality you witness. A "presence" that is descriptively singular and irreducible. And it cannot mitigated of interpreted away.

Will there be a trial of the soul after all? — javi2541997

Far be it for me to be father confessor. But I can say with considerable thought behind it, that many of the things we are told are taboo are just historical contrivances. One rule in my book: do no harm. Okay, two: pursue love, and peace and all those lovely passé hippie values. Outside of that, there is the structure of behavior norms held by a consensus, and there you are in the middle.

You know, be careful!

Ok, but this is really missing the point. Saying "different things can be good or bad for different," people doesn't even require perspectivism, let alone the claim that "good" reduces to simply "I prefer." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Your example of heroin didn't make your point for you. That's all I am saying. There are a range of interpretations or perspectives available to us about this (and so many human behaviours) that I hasten to apply terms like good or bad or harmful or harmless to them.

Other than that I’m not really sure I’m arguing for anything in particular, just skeptical about what seems to me to be a reification of ‘good’.

On the broader question of relativism, what I wrote was that I am 'open to it' which is not the same as saying that I am an absolute relativist and that 'I prefer' is the only frame. I agree that some things can be demonstrated to be harmful to health or harmful to human flourishing.

My problem is that this doesn't necessarily imply any oughts or ought nots (other than pragmatically) and I have not heard a convincing argument addressing why we should consider a reification like 'the good' to be more than a pragmatic notion tied to how we achieve our goals.

I've been dipping into some of David Wong's work - he defends moral relativism, but frankly I lack the time or patience to get into this in depth.

Thank you for your response. Fair enough, very convincing within the context in which you framed it (properly).

Will there be a trial of the soul after all? — javi2541997

Bear in mind, one possible derivation of the word 'sin' was 'to miss the mark'.

So the first order of business is simple description: what IS pain, examined like this? — Astrophel

From an article on 'emptiness' in Buddhism:

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there’s anything lying behind them.

This mode is called emptiness because it’s empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and to define the world we live in. — What is Emptiness?

See also this wikipedia entry on Buddhism and phenomenology containing this quote from Husserl:

Complete linguistic analysis of the Buddhist canonical writings provides us with a perfect opportunity of becoming acquainted with this means of seeing the world which is completely opposite of our European manner of observation, of setting ourselves in its perspective, and of making its dynamic results truly comprehensive through experience and understanding. For us, for anyone, who lives in this time of the collapse of our own exploited, decadent culture and has had a look around to see where spiritual purity and truth, where joyous mastery of the world manifests itself, this manner of seeing means a great adventure. That Buddhism - insofar as it speaks to us from pure original sources - is a religio-ethical discipline for spiritual purification and fulfillment of the highest stature - conceived of and dedicated to an inner result of a vigorous and unparalleled, elevated frame of mind, will soon become clear to every reader who devotes themselves to the work. Buddhism is comparable only with the highest form of the philosophy and religious spirit of our European culture. It is now our task to utilize this (to us) completely new Indian spiritual discipline which has been revitalized and strengthened by the contrast.

.

Will there be a trial of the soul after all? — javi2541997

Aren't you inflicting one upon yourself right now?

A question that occurred to me: Given the same act, do you find it easier to forgive it in others than in yourself?

For context: I'm neither spiritual nor religious, so I probably can't fully understand what you're going through.

Bear in mind, one possible derivation of the word 'sin' was 'to miss the mark'. — Wayfarer

Right. It is a softer way to see it.

Is it, though? What I took from it, was the sense of ‘misunderstanding the point of being alive.’ It works as a religious metaphor but also as a philosophical one.

Aren't you inflicting one upon yourself right now? — Dawnstorm

No! I don't think so. There is nothing here which causes me infliction. It is completely otherwise. I think it is good to open myself to others in this thread.

Given the same act, do you find it easier to forgive it in others than in yourself? — Dawnstorm

Indeed. Why does this happen? Well, because when a person (like me) is used to acting in a mask constantly, it is not that difficult to keep acting in the same way. OK. I say sorry to the ones I lied to. But how do I know I will not lie again? This is where the problem arises. I don't want to cause that bad behaviour as part of my 'nature'. At the moment, the only solution to this issue is redeeming myself. To start, finally assuming that acting badly has its consequences and there will be a trial to my spirit after all.

I'm neither spiritual nor religious, so I probably can't fully understand what you're going through. — Dawnstorm

Hmm... Didn't you ever feel anxiety for not acting accordingly to values and ethics?

It is indeed a good metaphor! I understand what you took from it. Well, everything can be a lesson, don't you think? Even the bitterest consequences of our actions.

If I am not wrong, that quote assumes the sense of being alive is making wrong choices perpetually. There is not anything bad with this, until we pass some limits though. It is not the same as making mistakes for being ignorant than for acting deliberately.

It means falling short or not reaching the goal. It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin' (although that is contested.) Nevertheless I see it as a useful interpretation.

No! I don't think so. There is nothing here which causes me infliction. It is completely otherwise. I think it is good to open myself to others in this thread. — javi2541997

I didn't mean only right here in this thread. More like: at this point in your life, you're worrying a lot about this topic, and from a non-spiritual perspective such as mine this looks like the extent of what spiritual trial might be. Judge, jury and defendant in one person, only the defendant isn't much interested in defense.

It's this soul stuff I don't properly understand, though, so I'm likely wrong. So:

Hmm... Didn't you ever feel anxiety for not acting accordingly to values and ethics? — javi2541997

To the extent that I have a conscience, sure. But there's no blight on my soul, nor a soul to begin with, in my world view. The worst anxieties I experience are for the future: when all the choices realistically open to me seem equally bad. After the fact, it's usually more a kind of shame. I sort of imagine that's the origin of Japanese seuppuku: cutting yourself open from the soft tissue in the belly upwards: that's where I start to feel the shame in extreme cases. (Though knowing Japanese culture it's probably more a show of determination - cutting yourself there hurts a lot.) Anxiety is more chest-centred for me.

Indeed. Why does this happen? Well, because when a person (like me) is used to acting in a mask constantly, it is not that difficult to keep acting in the same way. OK. I say sorry to the ones I lied to. But how do I know I will not lie again? This is where the problem arises. I don't want to cause that bad behaviour as part of my 'nature'. At the moment, the only solution to this issue is redeeming myself. To start, finally assuming that acting badly has its consequences and there will be a trial to my spirit after all. — javi2541997

It's about what you do from now on out, then, right? Or do I misunderstand?

This does sound plausible: forgiving yourself too easily can lead to letting yourself go, which in turn makes all that self-examination seem more like a sort of gambit, or self-pity. You do need the motivation to better yourself, and forgiving yourself too easily can get in the way of this. There's no such problem when it comes to others (or, on second thought, there may be: forgive them too easily and you enable their bad habits maybe?)

Not sure I understood you correctly, here. I'm not sure what difference a "soul" makes. I never had much use for the concept of "sin", for example. Shintoist kegare seems more useful: less judgemental, but also a bit of... too afraid of the world maybe?

For me it's all just a muddle of what I think I should do (which I often don't know), what I think my most selfish aspects want to do (which I often don't quite know either), and what I think I'm mostly likely to do (which is the easiest to predict), and how I think about all of that (not too well, since I tend towards pessimism - luckily my pessimism is tempered by my cynicism). I just sort of muddle through all that on day by day basis until one day I'm gone.

It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin' — Wayfarer

Ah! Interesting, thanks for that Wayfarer. It is a pleasure to learn something new. :smile:

you're worrying a lot about this topic, and from a non-spiritual perspective such as mine this looks like the extent of what spiritual trial might be. Judge, jury and defendant in one person, only the defendant isn't much interested in defense.

It's this soul stuff I don't properly understand, though, so I'm likely wrong. So: — Dawnstorm

A trial of the soul is a concept used by Kierkegaard. Precisely, K talks about 'Anfaestgalse' a Danish word which there is a big debate on what really means. I have the Spanish version, and it is translated as 'anxiety', but I found some English papers and the authors translated it as 'trial of the soul'. Approaching the main topic of this thread, I wonder if, after behaving badly or unethically, there would be a trial about my soul. I mean, is there a cause and effect? It is obvious that in the tangible or real world there are a lot of consequences. People stop trusting me and I lack confidence and I suffer from anxiety. But I want to dive deeper into this matter. Afterwards, is there a possibility that our spirit will experience a trial because of our actions? By the way, I am not referring to karma.

I'm not sure what difference a "soul" makes. I never had much use for the concept of "sin", for example. — Dawnstorm

Because sins, bad actions, unethical behaviour, lying, etc, Have to affect someone or something. Don't you think? I believe those affect the vitality of the spirit.

too afraid of the world maybe? — Dawnstorm

Yes, frankly.

A trial of the soul is a concept used by Kierkegaard. Precisely, K talks about 'Anfaestgalse' a Danish word which there is a big debate on what really means. I have the Spanish version, and it is translated as 'anxiety', but I found some English papers and the authors translated it as 'trial of the soul'. Approaching the main topic of this thread, I wonder if, after behaving badly or unethically, there would be a trial about my soul. I mean, is there a cause and effect? It is obvious that in the tangible or real world there are a lot of consequences. People stop trusting me and I lack confidence and I suffer from anxiety. But I want to dive deeper into this matter. Afterwards, is there a possibility that our spirit will experience a trial because of our actions? By the way, I am not referring to karma. — javi2541997

I've tried to look up what Kierkegaard said on the topic, but... it's impenetrable answers to impenetrable questions. I really need to go back a few steps if I'm even to hope to know what he's talking about. What I read felt like gibberish, I'm sorry to say. I'm not sure I have the time and inclination to dive that deep, though. (Note: I'm not saying that Kierkegaard is gibberish; I'm saying my current understanding of Kierkegaard is gibberish.)

Also: google doesn't know "anfaestgalse". My mothertongue's German, and the word doesn't sound very Germanic either. Some sort of typo? Anxiety, according to one source I found, would have been "angest", which makes sense as it's cognate with English (and German) "angst". I didn't find any reference to "trial of the soul" (after very superficial googling, mind you), but I did find "spiritual trial", which may or may not be an alternate translation; I didn't find the Danish word, though.

In any case, I'm unsure how much solving the language puzzle would help me; no idea how similar Danish and German are, and how much my intuition might mislead me.

Because sins, bad actions, unethical behaviour, lying, etc, Have to affect someone or something. Don't you think? I believe those affect the vitality of the spirit. — javi2541997

Well, yes, lying affects relationships. But I feel like I can analyse or think about this without any reference to the soul.

Say you're freshly in love, and the person you're in love with cooks a dish for you that you hate (it's no the cooking but the main ingredient). You can't bring yourself to admit this and successfully pretend that it's delicisious. The lie will set expectations for the further relationship. Now you may have to eat food you hate or admit to lying in addition to telling the uncomfortable truth. The more often you repeat the lie, the more involved this becomes. And there's a good chance that the truth will come out in a rather unpleasant situation; like when you're fighting one time. I can imagine that a situation like can feel in a way that could be described as a "taint in a soul" or something like that, but for me this would just be a short cut for something more complex - but all there is is actions, expectations, relationships and things like this. I can't go from there to a trial of the "soul". There's nothing coherent enough so that it can be tried. Or tainted. There's just the flow of my daily conduct and its outward connections into social situations, sometimes good, sometimes bad, often neither, always a muddle. I live, I sometimes fret about it, and then I live no more. That's about the whole of it for me.

It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin'
— Wayfarer

Ah! Interesting, thanks for that Wayfarer. It is a pleasure to learn something new. :smile: — javi2541997

What Wayfarer also points to is that Christianity (like most faiths) can be made to argue anything at all - it's in the interpretation you choose which may have nothing to do with what the religion may in fact stand for or have originally intended. Many people torture themselves here on earth out of fear of the judgements of god and a self-created violation of holy order.

Also: google doesn't know "anfaestgalse". My mothertongue's German, and the word doesn't sound very Germanic either. Some sort of typo? — Dawnstorm

Firstly, I am sorry because I didn't write the word correctly. The word is correctly written in this way: 'anfægtelse'

I think I haven't expressed myself clearly, but I will explain my concern again:

Context: Kierkegaard, in his work Fear and Trembling, discussed the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham during the Binding of Isaac.

K presents this problemata about contradiction and anxiety with three different questions open to debate or discuss:

A) Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?
B) Is there an absolute duty to God?
C) Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, From Eliezer, and from Isaac?

In the book, and the answers to those questions, Kierkegaard states: During three days and three nights, Abraham suffered from 'anfægtelse', because doubt was set in motion. Abraham had to choose between the ethical requirements of his surroundings and what he regarded as his absolute duty to God.

This anxiety experienced by Abraham is described by K as anfægtelse. My Spanish edition translated it as anxiety as well. But I found English works which translated it as 'trial of the soul'

This is very interesting...

What did K actually feel like? Anxiety at the moment or what could come afterwards?

What Wayfarer also points to is that Christianity (like most faiths) can be made to argue anything at all — Tom Storm

I agree.

it's in the interpretation you choose which may have nothing to do with what the religion may in fact stand for or have originally intended. — Tom Storm

And that's why I struggle with religious faith! :smile:

Thanks to this exchange, I am getting to the conclusion that, although I often acted wrongly, and my spirit started to get dirty, I realize I can start to clean it up by proceeding with confession. — javi2541997

Although this might be the part of the process which makes you feel good, confident, courageous, etc., the act of confession might also be said to be the easiest part of the process. The confession helps to isolate and identify the problems of character which inhere within, but now the real effort is to tackle those bad habits. Strategy is required.

I suggest you identify the weaknesses within the bad habits themselves, which might provide you with a place to gain a foothold in the struggle against them. Often, the bad habits are arranged hierarchically so that you might identify a foundation which can be blasted out, dropping the rest like dominoes. This might require a hierarchy of good objectives. The good objectives will inevitably break the foundational bad habit through number, multiplicity. Many small good habits are required to take the time away from the one large bad habit. The foundational bad habit, although it's effectively the worst bad habit because it supports the others, may actually be the easiest one to break, because nothing supports it other than your material composition. That's why medication may be very effective toward curbing many bad habits.

From an article on 'emptiness' in Buddhism:

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there’s anything lying behind them.

This mode is called emptiness because it’s empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and to define the world we live in.
— What is Emptiness? — Wayfarer

It's very interesting that "emptiness" is the descriptive term often associated with depression in psychology. I think that what Buddhism demonstrates to us here, is that this position, what in the west is known as being down, empty, gives us a very unique perspective where there is only one direction, up. The Buddhist perspective explained here describes all these negatives which we associate with being down, or being empty, as artificial, created by the stories and world-views which we use to situate ourselves within 'the world'. To complete the emptiness, or depression, to bring it to its absolute end, requires removing the situation which produced it in the first place.

These are the features which have forced us down, and may hold us down within the emptiness of depression, the stories and world-views which we have used to make sense of the world in the first place. But these can only hold us down if we allow them to, by clinging to them. Once we recognize that they are in fact what has forced us down, and that they only have the capacity to hold us down because we hold onto to them, then we can release them and find true freedom.

As model of personal development, it focuses upon the crisis of adolescence and the perils of becoming a 'single individual'. — Paine

You mean how the child emerges from innocence and in receiving the world's language and culture, the "sin" of the race, discovers freedom and guilt. Very Freudian (who had read Kierkegaard). If the father is God, this imposes a metaphysical commandment which has as its principal injunction the having "no gods before me" and "no idols" kind of thing. And so, the knight of faith lives the mundane life (Fear and Trembling) but in the "light" of the father, in all things.

On becoming a single individual: Kierkegaard's is an interesting analysis about the genesis of morality (not that I think of things like this so much, but it is important the way it contributed to Freud's famous psycho-metaphysics):

K first points out that it cannot be the case that Adam could at once be innocent and know the difference between good and evil. Of course, the story says Adam is first innocent, but then how is guilt at all possible if the prohibition is meaningless simply because Adam has not yet learned of its nature? This will come after the disobedience. Prior to this, all Adam has is authoritative compliance. So the impulse to bite the apple is the first act of true freedom, and, alas, discovery of consequences. Adam is a child. But then: the whole concept rests with, begins with, the assumption of a commandment, one that insists Adam obey commandments. Adam first has to have this belief in place, but this belief is not fixed and is fragile, assailable, for Adam does have the option to disobey, which is freedom, an essential condition of our existence..

The child first is born into a kind of animalistic servitude to its own desires, and this innocence is challenged by the commandment, which is disobeyed (probably the first sin is concupiscence. What Eve really gives Adam is lust). Eden is the infants crib, a place of polymorphous sexual perversity, as Freud thought of it, in which there is a feeling of absolute power, the breast comes at one's insistence, as does relief from all discomfort.

The apple is a symbol of freedom and the discovery of anxiety and guilt and sin. Later, the apple will become the sin of the race---- the expansion of culture such that it rules one's desires and drives one away from the father. This is sublimation, and so what we call civilized living Kierkegaard calls inherited sin, this erection of social institutions and indulgences that displaces the father's commandments.

Something like that.

From an article on 'emptiness' in Buddhism:

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there’s anything lying behind them.

This mode is called emptiness because it’s empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and to define the world we live in. — Wayfarer

You know, I agree with this. The trouble comes in several places, but the one that stands out for me is agency. Though there is "no thought whether there is anything behind things," that refers to explicit thought. In the familiarity of the world there is history that constitutes this sense of things, and that constitutes my "I". I am not like an infant for whom there really is not world at all, just a private localized and limited environment. It is culture and language that takes time to imprint a foundation, so to speak, and when this interpretative "nothing" meets some thing, the thing not just loses whatever might be behind, but very ground for familiarity itself. In other words, when I am comfortable just sitting doing nothing, the world is still held within the grasp of memory.

To me this is not to question the meanings that rise up in a liberated state. Quite the opposite: It suggests that the enculturation that is always already there, in the perceptual event, tacitly telling me that everything is such and such and so and so and no need for alarm, and really, makes this moment possible (because an infant, unenculturated and pure, cannot meditate, or do yoga of any kind) does not stand as an obstacle at all, but is necessary for encountering the world as a singular agency. The "I" that is a social construct is ALSO a construct for liberation and enlightenment.

One, perhaps, likes to think that serious meditation is a true negation of the self, but this is, I would argue, mistaken.

One, perhaps, likes to think that serious meditation is a true negation of the self, but this is, I would argue, mistaken. — Astrophel

Oh. I thought that was what you meant by

meditation is an annihilation of ones "existence". — Astrophel

serious meditation is a method of discovery and liberation FROM this mundane self. — Astrophel

But, never mind. I was only trying to discover some common ground between phenomenology and Buddhist Studies.

It's very interesting that "emptiness" is the descriptive term often associated with depression in psychology. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also entirely mistaken, perhaps you might read the article in full (although I won't argue the point).

But, never mind. I was only trying to discover some common ground between phenomenology and Buddhist Studies. — Wayfarer

There is the self and then there is the "self". One is the everyday self, and this suspended in meditation, and I think this is likely not in dispute by anyone. What is an issue is the nature of the "I" that endures the suspension. I can't make sense of this, but so what. I do know that there are intimations that emerge when one does this push the question into metaphysics, what I call good metaphysics, "The Cloud of Unknowing" kind of metaphysics. There is an extraordinary affirmation in this.

Also entirely mistaken, perhaps you might read the article in full (although I won't argue the point). — Wayfarer

I don't think there is much to mistake with a word like "emptiness". There isn't a whole lot of ambiguity associated with that word. So, I think you're best off not to try to argue the point.

‘Emptiness’ is the English translation. The actual term is sunnata (śūnyatā).

And is it not translated as "emptiness" for a reason?

As often, because there is no direct equivalent for many terms in the Buddhist lexicon, and vice versa. There are no direct translations for karma, dharma, bodhi, Vijñāna and many other terms, nor direct Buddhist equivalents for words like ‘spiritual’. In any case, the article makes it perfectly clear that ‘emptiness’ has nothing whatever to do with depressive states.

There have been comparisons made between śūnyatā and the epochē of Husserl, and also Pyrrho’s ‘suspension of judgement about what is not evident’ - about not reading things into the raw material of experience but learning to see ‘things as they are’. I thought I noticed a resonance between this and some of the remarks made by @Astrophel but perhaps I was mistaken.

If…you can adopt the emptiness mode—by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves—you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the subtlest events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of “I” and “mine” are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that’s totally free.

As often, because there is no direct equivalent for many terms in the Buddhist lexicon, and vice versa. There are no direct translations for karma, dharma, bodhi, Vijñāna and many other terms, nor direct Buddhist equivalents for words like ‘spiritual’. In any case, the article makes it perfectly clear that ‘emptiness’ has nothing whatever to do with depressive states. — Wayfarer

The page on "emptiness" which you referred, seems to confirm what I said. Both forms of emptiness are associated with the relationship between a person's feelings, and one's thoughts, the stories or world-views which are employed to deal with one's feelings. The difference appears to be that the Buddhist sunnata mode is an intentional suppression, while the other is an unintentional depression. Each appears to result in a similar condition, described as "emptiness". But the intentional emptiness is manageable, controlled and conditioned, being consciously intended, and therefore may be utilized toward one's well-being, while the other form of emptiness is not manageable and is therefore most likely detrimental toward one's well-being.

There have been comparisons made between śūnyatā and the epochē of Husserl, and also Pyrrho’s ‘suspension of judgement about what is not evident’ - about not reading things into the raw material of experience but learning to see ‘things as they are’. I thought I noticed a resonance between this and some of the remarks made by Astrophel but perhaps I was mistaken. — Wayfarer

The problem I see, is that experience is always preconditioned by thought, so there is no such thing as "the raw material of experience", which would be the feelings, or sensations, without any associated thought. A large portion of thought is so deep into the subconscious level, being purely habitual, learned at a very young age, that it is not even apparent to the conscious mind. So what the conscious mind takes "the raw material of experience" to be, is something which has already been affected by thought which the conscious mind has simply not taken into account, being composed of very rapid actions and reactions in the borderline area between conscious and subconscious.

In other words, there is no such thing as seeing "things as they are", without reading things into the perceptions, because things are already read into the perceptions by the time the conscious mind attempts disassociate the stories and world-view from the raw material which provides for perception. This is why we hit the bottom, the dead end which you called emptiness. The attempt to find one's "self" is stymied and we must face the reality of the fruitlessness. We, or "I", as a self-conscious living being, or self-conscious living beings, are helpless in any attempt to get down to any lower level of separating the raw material from the conditioning stories or world-views, because it becomes very evident that complete separation is utterly impossible, and the venture is doomed to failure. This leaves us empty, and forces upon us the need to salvage whatever freedom we can, from this dreadful situation which reveals that the freedom we so desire is inescapably hindered, and so we proceed accordingly. In western religions this is recognized as the soul being united to, and hindered by, the body.

A large portion of thought is so deep into the subconscious level, being purely habitual, learned at a very young age, that it is not even apparent to the conscious mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is something meditators, yogis and even some philosophers understand thoroughly, of course.

I see how Kierkegaard's argument is using the biblical accounts to build a sort of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" model of an individual. But the emphasis upon the limits of psychology in the text place it very far from the theory of drives in Freud.

There is, in Kierkegaard, a move against the role of sex as a measure of sinfulness as depicted in the language of Paul.