If you assume that you know the world as it is, then you are totally oblivious to the possibility that you may have biases. — Olivier5

If you say you can see the world as it is, period, then you are confused about your fallibility and biases right from the start. Or course, regardless of where one weighs in on this issue one can still be susceptible to biases. But we do see the world as it is to some degree. You seem to see this professor and his biases, for example.

The extreme American neofascist corporate oligarchic movement — hypericin

What if you're on the Left and see the above as a conspiracy that is already realized and ongoing.

No, emotions are not all that matters, or make life worth living. — Philosophim

I really think emotions do not play such a crucial part in the big picture of things. — aylon

Humans are more than just their emotions — Regretomancer

The process is absolutely influenced by emotion but I don't think it's hinged on it, the process is logic-based. — Judaka

Emotion is what makes our lives 'matter'. — existentialcrisis

I think there is an equivocation at the heart of this thread in the word 'matters'

The word can mean 'is cared about' and the word can mean 'has important effects regarding'.

The defenders of the the idea that only emotions matter (cough cough) are thinking in the first definition.
The only reason I care about marriage, a good job, understanding something is due to emotions. In a sense it is tautological. Care is a kind of emotion (in the sense being used here). I care about X, means I have emotions regarding it.

The people who are arguing against emotions being the reason that anything matters are, I think, more aligned with the second meaning. Of course the logical analytical part of the mind matters. It affects so much of what we do, think, decide, create....etc. It matters. It plays a powerful role.

And what that facility does matters to us (in the first sense of being emotionally important or is something we care about) precisely because it matters (in the second sense of has a core role) in all sorts of facets of out lives.

I do think there may be some fundamental disagreements between the two sides of this debate, but at the very least it is being exacerbated by the equivocation.

This is true. But in a context (this thread) where the issue seems to be generally presented in binary terms (we know or don't know the world as it is), we certainly know a tremendous amount of social reality. You can see this when you move into a cross-cultural situation and you, the stranger, to this social reality are constantly confused and commit faux pas with regularity and natives do not (thought obviously they are not infallible). They can read cues and know when people are angry or what their motivations are much better than you can. A similar argument could be made regarding certain kinds of autism. That there are degrees/gradations of knowing. I doubt anyone thinks we are remotely infallible (even the most skilled detectives and poker players (or Dr. Ekman who made as close to a science of reading people as he could). Babies lock onto their mothers' faces as the first part of a long (in some case lifelong) learning how to read people.

(this may all have little to do with your point. I selfishly used it to return to my earlier point that it's not (necessarily anyway) a binary issue. I would disagree with someone saying 'we see the world as it is' and I disagree here with people who say 'we don't see the world as it is'. These, to me are both blanket and wrong and do not recognize that there is a spectrum. Some people seem to say sure, we can see or conceive the world as it is, but only when science is used. But man, we were feeding ourselves and successfully climbing trees and running down deer long before science - iow engaging in fast, complicated assessments of the reality we needed to navigate successfully.)

It's a good point you are making and in other contexts I have tried to explain to critics of Buddhism (and in some cases supporters) that they are treating Buddhist precepts as deontological when they are pragmatic. I agree. But that wasn't what I was getting at there with that example. Some people, not all, might find themselves hard pressed to see a parent in that situation as making a pragmatically weaker choice if they were extremely upset by their child not being successfully treated for leukemia. (not getting upset was the criterion raised by at least one prior explainer of why attachment was a problem or how attachment distinguishes itself from desire. Others were close to that kind of evaluation). It wasn't a logical assault (my example) but an attempt to shock people with an extreme example towards their own (possible) revulsion with the idea of this sweet spot and the pragmatic error of attachment to outcomes being wrong but desire is ok, etc. Then I might come in with a logical extension of what I am saying: there is something anti-human (or you could say anti-limbic system in Buddhism). There is a judgment by some parts of the brain that the limbic system is a problem, period. That there are problems with being a social mammal, internally. In the context of what is often presented as a non-judgmental, pragmatic system, I think this in turn may turn out to be seen as problematic. The Buddhist solution includes a judgment of what some might consider a core portion of themselves, that it ends up being a kind of enacted self-hate. Others may be happy to consider the limbic system something that needs to be contained, reduced, inhibited. Fine for them. They may or may not find a bit of a conundrum in Buddhisms general heuristic to merely observe what is external, but some facets of what is internal must be removed (for certain outcomes, and if one notices that these outcomes while not quite being presented as moral ones are often presented very close to divine ones). That perhaps there is a lack of compassion for certain parts of the self in the name of the compassion for the whole. But if they are comfortable with that, fine. Others may be mystified by what is actually fairly complicated and not realize that what they might think of as resistance to Buddhism (and 'resistance' in a pejorative sense for them) is actually the fact that they do not share the same values as the Buddhist teachers and masters, who are willing to cut out a portion of themselves to reduce and even eliminate their pain.

How attatched you are to something is answered by asking yourself "How big of a problem would it be if I didn't have this/this didn't happen?" The answer to that is usually different from what we desire. There is supposedly a sort of mental "Sweet spot" where you want things but at the same time are not distraught at failing to get them. — khaled

OK, your kid's getting treatment for childhood leukemia. You want your kid to live.
Where's the sweet spot?
This may seem snotty picking such an extreme example, but at the same time it really highlights, to me, that there is, at root, a division in Buddhism. Accept what it outside you, but try to dampen certain things inside you.

This doesn't work either because there is nothing else in this universe apart from the two balls. — afterthegame

If there's nothing else in the universe, then we cannot treat them in any way, including in terms of identity. We aren't there. If we are there, we are there somewhere, then one of them is to the left and the other to the right or one is behind the other. And there's the identity. We can't get more specific since they are the same in all other ways than location. The difference between them is location. And then, they are not the same objects, since there are two of them. Without an identifier I am not sure what identity means. If they are alone in their universe, well, they are not the same ball by definition, since there are two of them.

In many situations with two of the same thing, they have no other identity than location. Like a couple of electrons, say. Perhaps there are potential energetic differences between those. But we don't need another universe to have two of the same thing. Could be two hydrogen atoms.

The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, maybe I accidentally made a good argument that Buddhism is hypocritical. Not my intention. Further I don't think they make an intellectual admonishment. They suggest other activities. The use koans to overload the mental verbal looping. I am presenting it in a more intellectualized form, but hey, I'm not a Buddhist. But if you think they're hypocrites, I am not upset. Further they don't and I am not presenting this in binary terms. It is not 'never intellectualize' but avoid long forays in it. Avoid focusing on it.

It's only "the pointing out" which you are doing which is odd, not the reaction of others to it.. You are making the conclusion that Buddhism portrays intellectualizing as necessarily wrong, but that in itself is already an intellectualized conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which I get to make since I am not a Buddhist. Honestly this all seems extremely defensive.

If you would follow the example, which you yourself put up, to "fist empty your cup", then you would see that it would be impossible to proceed to the conclusion that one ought to avoid intellectualizing, because this conclusion could only be supported through intellectualizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you can't see the difference between long posts analyzing symbols and discussing abstract ideas
NOT in the context of an expert raising the issue
and a nearly transparent story that is immediately grasped without long posts and references to various teachers and what they said.
Of course that person could realize that they were not in a receptive learning state and perhaps realize that without even intellectualizing it. Just feel it through the mirrored analogous activity the master presented. But yup there will be moments when masters use abstract concepts AND PERHAPS the professor yup, has an intellectual moment, which is part of a general letting go of intellectualizing and reducing it. It ain't binary. But long analytical discussions would be discouraged. A librarian can shush people, even rather loudly (at least they used to do this) and be hypocritical only in an extremely binary interpretion of what they are doing, trying to make an environment conducive the activities libraries were once meant for. Yes, they made a noise. Does that use of noise reduce the overall noise and create a better environment for study and reading. I think it might. If the teacher of Buddhism compassion kills a person for killing a bird, ok, get out the you hypocrite signs.
There are other non-verbal ways such things are discouraged. And sure, most adherents might have a conceptual insight about intellectualizing. If they begin to minimize their intellectualizing, that's a net gain. It's pragmatic, not some absolute moral stance that intellectualizing is bad. Longer sequences of it are problematic. It's what they have discovered or at least think they have and they try to minimize it. I don't think that's hypocrisy if some abstractions come up in the process.
Unless one is some kind of fascist purist - and some Zen Temples are that. Perhaps they live up to the absolute level you seem to think is the only consistant one. They hit people with sticks when they do things they consider problematic. That's more like Pavlovian conditioning.

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd, or better put, as I said above, defensive. Or perhaps you're critical of Zen Buddhism and you want me to admit I think it is hypocritical also. I don't. My issues with Buddhism have to do with the goals and practice, not with some perceived hypocrisy.

I'm out.

But really what I meant was that given that philosophy is often a process of questioning everything, it seems relevant and appropriate to include philosophy itself in the list of things being challenged. Not off topic on a philosophy forum in other words, imho. — Hippyhead

Certainly not off topic, no. Perhaps in this thread, but not in the forum.

As quick example, if religion with all of it's authority structures etc was a living species, we'd have to say it's proven pretty well adapted to it's environment, the human mind. Buddhism is something like 2,500 years old, yes? — Hippyhead

Yes, and the West tends to take a reductionist relation to such things: they take pieces out of the range of practices. But of course on can be critical. And for me, what if the goal is not my goal, for example. Perhaps the practices are exceptionally good at reaching the goals in Buddhism (and I tend to believe this) but it's not what I want? One can be critical of authorities on this level also. And of course some facets may just be habit and not necessary.

Ok, to further my Zen education, if intellectualizing is supposed to be largely discarded, what is that supposed to be replaced with? What are the primary methodologies involved, other than being whacked and doing the teacher's laundry? :-) — Hippyhead

Meditation, chores or work, whatever your duties are. You might end up getting a koan to fuss your brain over. I mean, ya gotta live your life.

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using. — Hippyhead

Sure, and that's a different thing. That's when you are taking a stand and saying, I can question the masters. What I was reacting to was treating the master's words like scripture and engaging in intellectual analysis in a tradition that discourages that, especially in regard to Zen itself.

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching. — Hippyhead

Thank you, concisely put. It would be another thing if the context was critical. and by critical I do not mean necessarily negative.

Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-) — Hippyhead

I haven't tracked everyone's participation. Since you started responding to me, you didn't seem to be putting the teachings, via the story, in an authority position. I could be wrong. :razz:

You didn't say it, but you implied that. — Metaphysician Undercover

I doubt it. I don't believe that Buddhism is being inconsistant on that issue. It is extremely focused on practices, every community and master I encountered, and this is in a wide range of locations, both East and West, discouraged intellectualizing ideas in Zen and to some degree in general.

As far as the rest, there are all sorts of admonishments, especially in the Zen form of Buddhism, to avoid intellectualizing issues around Zen. Not merely that it is unnecessary.

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master
quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the
visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the
overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No
more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master
replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

That's not an isolated story. Then one can look at the whole tradition with koans which is precisely tryting to undermine the analytical mind, to short circuit it.

But I am going to drop out of this thread. I actually find the amount of negative reactions to this being pointed out rather odd. I certainly think people are free to do it. But it's as if a rather core portion of Zen teachings and Zen lived culture simply does not exist. I don't know how this has been missed. But I've said my piece and there seems little real interest in it other than Hippyhead.

The world has perceptible and imperceptible aspects, and on a day to day basis we usually want to talk about the world we perceive. — Daemon

I conclude that nobody can see the world as it is. — Daemon

To me those statements just don't work well together. In the first you make a strong, unqualified statement, an ontological one, abot the world. In the second statement you make a blanket claim that we do not see the world as it is. If you believe the second claim, how can you make the first one? And since it seems like you arrive at your conclusion in the second statement via observations like the first one, why do you trust the second claim?

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to. — Hippyhead

Habit and context. As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas, and generally with much less rigor that even college papers. Now I think Wayfarer meant, it's a philosophy forum, so it's fine. Well, sure. But not if one is treating Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, as the authority. And so when I say Habit, I mean, if any idea comes up, it is habit or culture here to throw analytical thinking and speculation at it. Which is of course fine in terms of philosophical chat, and also nothing I have anything against personally, since I am not a Buddhist, nor do I share Buddhist goals. Though I do think Buddhist masters have some excellent heuristics for achieving those goals. Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions. Like, the masters are good and wise in telling stories but their cautions about minimizing abstract thought and speculating about what one will experience or what stories that may not suit their level in meditative experience mean are off. And then one wonders how this was determined. It might be right. But it seems like something worth explaining, directly

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine. — Hippyhead

I notice a lot of team identification but not necessarily hving the skills one's team works with. LIke people will be for science, against religion, but in their arguments make all sorts of assertions that neither deduction nor induction support or are even referred to. Mindreading is often quite common is people who see themselves as representing science. If a thread said there were psychic phenomena they would weigh in against it - iow they agree with the conclusions of science but are not so aware of their own methodologies - and so assert things like 'You believe this because you are afraid of death.'

Obviously not all advocates of positions or even most are like this. Though it's a significant percentage. And there are similar contradicting their own epistemologies on other teams. IOW membership may have more to do with conclusions, rather than processes, or to put it another way, it may have little to do with real understanding.

Must we insist that explaining consciousness at a mechanistic level any easier than explaining the subjective first-person experience aspects of consciousness? My hunch is that the so-called easy problem of consciousness at a mechanistic level is equally as difficult as the so-called hard problem at the subjective level. — Wheatley

The easy problem is actually a lot of problems, explaining all sorts of cognitive stuff/behaviors/responses. It might actually be harder to complete. But it is different from the hard problem (so far). But in the end perhaps a non-dualist explanation will be arrived at. I think we can distinguish between the two problem types without assuming that they need different ontologies. I mean, perhaps they need different ontologies, perhaps not.

One solution that is a monism is a kind of panpsychism. Perhaps all matter has an experiential facet. The various cognitive abilities and functions depend on the complexity and structure of the matter, but at some base level there is interiority in all matter. So, consciousness is not some exception, but rather a facet of matter and there is no need for dualism. (I am not suggesting this as the solution to be critiqued and defended per se, but rather just to say a solution could be monist)

This is the subject matter of hypocrisy, and it is not a simple field of study. I think that you are intentionally making it even more complex in the way that you portray Buddhism. I think you represent Buddhism as intrinsically incoherent in relation to hypocrisy, as unknowingly promoting the sort of activity which they say ought to be avoided. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I was pointing out that people here were contradicting Buddhism while treating Buddhism as an authority. Not everyone in the thread but those I responded to or those who criticized my response, since I then defended my response to the behavior of others. At no point was I saying that Buddhism was internally contradictory or hypocritical. I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best.

Having a belief and being able to symbolize it with scribbles and sounds are two separate things. We can symbolize anything, not just beliefs, so asking whether or not we can symbolize beliefs isn't a very interesting question. — Harry Hindu

1) if I look at the thread title it seems like the question of the thread 2) it may not be interesting to you, but I find it interesting that there isn't agreement on the issue.

Non-language users have beliefs that they cannot put into statement form, but language users can put beliefs, as well as facts (like the fact that others have beliefs), into statement form. — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

A symbol system can be expanded to represent new events and processes. So languages can be adapted to represent virtually anything - beliefs or otherwise. — Harry Hindu

I tend to agree, but some things are much harder to put into words than others. Like 'the meaning of a dream'. One can certainly get a description of a dream and then produce a representation of what one thinks is the meaning. But given the complexity of dreams the amount of possible interpretations the possibility that there are contradictions in the dream (which can be hard to put into grammatically correct sentences or even use words that have to do with waking life), I think it makes it harder to make a clear statement that the meaning of a dream can be put into words.

Now certainly with beliefs attributed to animals, we can make mistakes or project. It's not that I see this as infallible AT ALL. But where I would assign a belief would be with clear repeated behavior. An wildebeast looking around carefully before drinking water at a water hole is quite different from a dream image of my father as a little boy telling me to be careful about the soup while we are in the tax office and suddenly I am him in a very different mood and the tax office turns out to be a brothel. It might be more useful to not seek to represent the dream in squiggles but to act it out or associate (in words) rather than to represent the meaning in sentences , as in an essay that says THE meaning.

But hey, I thought the topic was could beliefs be put into statement form (and I assume this meant that this would include doing this well or accurately) so that's what I am weighing in on. Even if it isn't as interesting as what you want us to focus on. I am open to that also.

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat. — Hippyhead

I think most of the overthinkers, which would be everyone in a way, know what they are getting into. They've thought about it. The idea that they are going to change their relation to thinking is not a problem. But a lot of mulling about, say, breaking down the subject object split or sartori or what the symbols in a certain story mean, that could get in the way. They you end up looking for in meditation and checking and comparing with internal images and hallucinations of what you think you are going to experience, for example.

This is true in many types of practices.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling. — Hippyhead

I think they get tossed a few bones, but a lot of abstract mulling is not going to be encouraged.

Insight or intuition is highly valued in Zen, if that's what you're essentially referring to, but it's hardly alien to the West — praxis

I don't think I said it was. I do think there is a different view of the purpose of language in Zen. That often text or speeches are considered lss containers of truth but eliciters of experience. What I am saying is not paraphrasable as 'insight and intuition'. .

If you're talking about koans, I don't know much about them. I understand them to be a form of contemplation (meditation). — praxis

I wasn't speaking specifically about koans,but they would be included in eliciting-language.

I think you know that this isn't really true because in all the activities that you list you've neglected to mention things dharma talks and the like, which are quite abstract and full of spiritual ideas. — praxis

The ones I have sat through - and I am quite sure this is standard practice - were 1) moving often from the abstract to the concrete and 2) led by experienced teachers and 3) it was meant to be tailor-fit to the specific listeners - their level in terms of meditation and focus, where they were in the process. Not, for example, like what is happening in this thread. Number two and three are built into the system. I would guess that number 1 is also.

Religious clergy of any tradition must supply meaning in the form of abstract spiritual ideas. — praxis

Sure, under, in this case, what they consider well controlled and guided circumstances and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid.

And heck, I'll throw out another problem in a Zen context for analysing stories. In the West we have a container model of language. The communication contains the truth. In Zen the point of stories is what they ELICIT. And that's why level of listener and setting are so important. It's not what the story means, it's what hearing the story does - which may include the meanings in the tools that elicit.

You get the 'right answer' or 'right interpretation' in words in your head and that may very likely be an obstacle.

I'm not quite sure that I'm getting you here.

Words and statements are just visual scribbles and audible sounds. Writing or speaking are actions. So why would it be so difficult to acknowledge that animals and babies have beliefs if they can make noises with their mouths, or perform actions? — Harry Hindu

I think animals have beliefs, babies too.

If you hear a person speaking a different language that you don't know, how do you know that they are using words or just making noises? How would you know that they have beliefs? — Harry Hindu

By their behavior, just as I do with animals. And yes, through non-verbal communication also, which is a subset of behavior. Of course with animals we are dealing with a serious cross-'cultural' divide, so I might make errors. But with mammals say, I share a lot in common with them. So, I do think I can work out many of their beliefs and put those in statements.

And since I was responding to someone who it seemed was saying 'they have beliefs that cannot be put into statements' they seem to recognize beliefs in animals, but have deciding that these beliefs they recognize, some of them, cannot be put into statements. Well, I don't think that makes any sense. If they recognized a belief in an animal, then it can be put into words. The animal may not, but they are, without seeming to acknowledge it, now capable of it.

There is just as much necessity to determine where the wise man goes wrong, as there is a necessity to follow the direction of the wise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I certainly could have missed it but that wasn't what I was reacting to in the thread. It seemed to be trying to find out what the wise person meant via symbols and metaphors in the story. .

No one is capable of perfection in guidance. Just because the person is wise, does not mean that we ought to mimic every action of the person, or follow every word. The wise, like the geniuses, are the ones who surpass the boundaries of existing knowledge, so it is very important to determine where they are wrong and where they are right in those endeavours. If our attitude is to think, Einstein said it, he's a genius therefore it must be correct, we will all be misled. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't make that assumption at all. But 1) it is one of the core ideas of Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, and again, it seemed like people were trying to glean the master's meaning, not to critique it.

This is how philosophy proceeds, we look at the wisdom presented by the various respected philosophers (wise man), and discern correct from incorrect within those writings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then someone could have said 'no, Buddhism is wrong about that, those recommendations are incorrect.' But that wasn't the response.

It appears to me, like modern western culture has led us down a pathway where the individual person's need to develop the philosophical capacity to discern good from bad is completely ignored, or even hidden from us. It's as if we are taught that this moral capacity just comes naturally, through instinct. We can automatically discern good from bad without the need for philosophical training. It is also implied that the authorities are necessarily correct, or else they wouldn't be authorities. I hope that the presence of president Trump serves as a wakeup call, as to how deceptive this idea can be. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't presented this as a moral issue, nor, I think have the others. It seems to me a practical issue. If the goals of Buddism and this, is behavior X a good one. Buddhism itself suggests it is not effective and in fact it is counterproductive to X. Unless one is saying the Buddhism is wrong about that, it is odd to be on the one hand treating a story in a sense as scripture while at the same time ignoring what the same sources say about analyzing and abstracting and focusing on mental verbal thinking.

So if a wise man says to you "don't doubt my wisdom for it is true wisdom, therefore you ought not doubt it", and the man has proven himself to be truly wise, by amassing a multitude of followers, would you say that we ought not question that man's wisdom? Because this is what you appear to be saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's not what I am saying. I think the above should make clear what I am saying. In a context where people are treating something as authority and trying to work out what it means, it seems odd to me that what they are doing goes against those same authorities without at least, at the same time saying they are not authorities to be completely trusted. They would also, it seems to me, say why they trust the wisdom of the story, but have decided the Buddhism is incorrect on other issues. It's a bit like if I find a group of people treating a teaching story of Ghandi as total authority while at the same time advocating hitting people who disagree. I would immediately want, in that situation to say, Hey, you are treating G as an authority while ignoring an even more to G idea around non-violence. It seemed to me Ghandi was saying that non-violence is not only a more moral approach but a more practical one. If you think his other story is correct and threat it like scripture, why are you ignoring his core idea. And honestly are you in a place to judge either one yet?

But sure, if someone had said. Oh, the teaching stories have wisdom I trust, but that stuff in Buddhism about avoiding thinking about states and processes and getting bogged down in abstract ideas about practice there the Buddhists were wrong. Fine. Then they have taken a stand against a portion of Buddhism, not implicitly like they have here, but explicitly. Now one can ask, so 'why do you think the wisdom in that story is correct or correct for you and what you want?'

There's a cake and eat it too happening here.

I’m pretty sure that most people understand that there’s a difference between “being in your head” and the various practices of meditation, and that a person can practice meditation for a time without being in their head and at other times think freely without practicing meditation. — praxis

Yes, and if I'd said one cannot do both these things this would be a good point. The context of the thread is a Zen Story and what it means. In Zen you will not find it recommended, in fact you will find the opposite, that one sit around and discuss in abstract terms what stories mean that likely to not fit where you are in your process. You will find the other activities, the non-meditation practices or dailty activities, to be practical, grounded, and ones to focus one's attention on. Getting and preparting the food, for example, and being present for that. There are suggestions in every branch of Buddhism I've encountered to focus away from abstract thought and also there is this idea that doing so ABOUT the spiritual ideas and stages and meansing can interfere with growth.

Nevertheless, there’s really no reason that investigating the practice can’t be beneficial, is there? — praxis

I don't really see the type of discussion in this thread as investigating the practice. And sure, religious people can be be wrong, but implicit in most of the posts I read here is 'there is wisdom in this story, what is that wisdom?'. Well if the working assumption is that these guy have wisdom and the issue is what is the specific wisdom and at the same time these traditions recommend against precisely this sort of activity, to me it doesn't make sense. For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense.

Obviously people will do this, I can't stop them, and frankly I don't really want to. I'm not a fan of Buddhism, though I have a lot of experience with it. But, I wanted to point out the issue.

There are in fact a lot of subjects where if the idea in the background is 'this expert is wise' and then also, I am moving towards the goals of this expert, and the person is up in their head, there's a problem. All sorts of physical activities, from sports to carpentry, and then also all sorts of activities where you simply have to have built up knowledge to understand what you are talking about: particle physics, neuroscience, whatever. I think the talking and writing as if one knows or has the tools to understand is actually an obstacle. In Buddhism, well, they come right out and say this, especially in Zen.

It's foolish to think that investigating something can't be beneficial to the practice of what's being investigated. — praxis

Depends on the tradition and practices. In Buddhism, many of the forms, and nearly all of them in practice, there are warnings about being in your head, trying to understand things that one has not laid the meditative groundwork for, creating ideas of things one has not experienced. That these can be blocks, slow down advancement. There's also a huge aspect of hubris.

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here. — Hippyhead

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice. Then, also, it create an intellectual fog that any future practices must get through. The 'Oh, is this subject/object monism.' type internal commenting and expecting and incorrectly expecting as being like X, will get in the way of actually experiencing X.

There are things we don't know that we don't know, and they are part of the world as it is, so we don't know the world as it is. — Daemon

IOW we don't know everything about the world if there are things we don't know. Or universe, really, presumably. Or are you asserting we know nothing about the world?

The first seems pretty much a given. If we don't know everything - that is, there are things we don't know - then we don't know everything.

The second would contradict itself it seems to me. Since we are a part of the world, and you are making a claim about us, you seem to know something about the world.

If creative could give an example then it wouldn't be an example of a belief that can't be put into statement form, rather it would be an example of a belief put in statement form. — Harry Hindu

He could indicate phenomena that lead him to believe there is a belief involved and which cannot be put into words. He doesn't have to say what the belief is. IOW he can justify his position through a specific without putting into words. Otherwise, it seems to me, we have nothing to go on.

The first question should be, "What is a belief?" If you can show that animals and pre-language babies (or adults as in the case of Idelfonso - The Man Without Words) have beliefs, then is that not enough to show that there are beliefs that cannot be put into statements? — Harry Hindu

Well, not for me. I think anything I consider as something an animal believes can be put into a statement. They don't do that, but that's another story. I don't believe all of my beliefs, for example, have been put into statements. But a belief is an idea about how things are/work/cause/will be/have been. Those can all be put into words.

When drinking water at the watering hole it is good to be ready to run. Other places and positions are safer.

To me anything I would attribute as a belief to an animal could be formulated in language. Otherwise I would not call it a belief. Like the way the skin might pulsate if you poked a baboons skin. I wouldn't call that a belief, I'd call that a response.

Something leads him to believe 'those phenomena indicate a belief'. He can tell me the phenomena. I would likely then show how it could be put into a statement. Not a statement describing the phenomena, but a statement of the underlying belief.

The possible numbers are infinite, however, no mind could actually think of numbers that are so complicated (a specific google long number rather than 10 to the google, say) it would take longer than a lifetime think out. But the primary problem with your argument is that unless there are infinite numbers of brains then you will have a finite number of thoughts of numbers. Yes, perhaps they COULD think of one of an infinite set of numbers, but they won't get passed a finite number.

Janus and Marchesk are playing at philosophy. It's a word game that they drop as soon a they stand up form their armchair and start doing the things. — Banno

I am not clear yet what Janus is doing, but one has to wonder why Marchesk thinks his posts relate to anything we say. I mean, if he doesn't see the world as it is art all, he isn't seeing our posts free from perspectives or with infallible perception. I mean, how does he know he's not milking a cow when he thinks he's responding to what we wrote?

Then we cannot be perceiving it as it is! — Marchesk

Jeez, you didn't even quote the end of the sentence. I cannot imagine a more openly evasive response.
I am going to ignore you from here on out.

Ah, but the demanded condition for being able to see the world as it is, is to be able to see it free from all perspectives; — Janus

Who demanded this? We haven't discussed this, you and me, so I'll repeat. I don't think it's binary. My example earlier is of someone running through a field, with holes and cow poop and tussocks of grass. That person must be, it seems to me, seeing the world as it is.....to a degree. Or they could not do that over and over. Sure, it's a perspective. We are time bound, localized creatures with limited senses. Senses that see the world, to some degree. And any evidence that we make mistakes or have filters will be based on observations that are trusted by the scientists, for example, as being accurate observations of the world as it is.

Add to that the science of how perception works, and how often science has overturned our intuitions about the world, and it’s clear that the world appears different than it is. — Marchesk

There’s a SEP entry on the problem of perception. It’s as old as philosophy. The short of it is people noticed that we’re subject to illusions, hallucinations and perceptual relativity. — Marchesk

Yes, I've noticed that also. I've acknowledged that in different words. Notice, for example, the word hallucination only makes sense when contrasted with something that is not a hallucination. In order to determine it was a hallucination, one needs to trust other perceptions.

Two, you never really respond to the points I make. You reiterate your position. You do not address how we do see the world, even 'as it is', in my examples. Nor do you explain how science avoids basing its conclusions without using observations. Which the scientists then trust. (with provisos for revision).

Add to that the science of how perception works, and how often science has overturned our intuitions about the world, and it’s clear that the world appears different than it is. — Marchesk

Science has not overturned all our intuitions about the world. One one they are not is that we can use our senses to draw correct conclusions about the world. Like the guy running through the field.

And how would he know?

Don't see reality as it is. The bolded part is the key part. We do perceive reality. But we do so from a certain perspective. — Marchesk

Well, the guy who runs through the field, in the first post you responded to, is to some SERIOUS degree seeing that field as it is. Or he would not make it across. It's not binary.

The best we can do is rely on what science reveals about the world. — Marchesk

Not for running across a field. For running across a field I need to go on what I have learned by seeing the world, to a very useful degree, as it is. My experience and bodily intuition. Bringing science into that run would probably just distract me. And we were seeing the world, in part as it is, long before science.

That's an abstracted view, but it gets at the properties and processes of things as they are, if imperfectly. — Marchesk

Sure, it is also a perspective, based on observations. So, it can't be binary. Whatever evidence there is that my seeing is limited, filtered, interpreted, comes from other sensory experiences that one must take as correct or significantly correct or they would not be of use in determining how reality is. Science is an empiricist process. So, it relies on seeing (or at least the senses, I don't want to excluse blind scientists, but even those will be sensing somehow or relying the observations of assistants.

Ah, you mean we don't see ALL of reality. Or that we miss things. Or that our perception is limited.

Well, sure. But I still think the statement that we don't see reality doesn't hold. There's no need to treat it as a binary issue. Further, if you mount an argument, supporting that statement, it will be based on what you think are accurate observations of reality.

I was responding to...

I conclude that nobody can see the world as it is. — Daemon

That contradicts itself. I mean, how would this completely blind person know what others see. I suppose if he was a Rationalist who could make the claim in any case. But an empiricist is on thin ice and what would the Rationalist be talking about. What do any of his or her words refer to)

So, your argument is that other folk, including robins, see things differently to you, and hence... no-one sees the world as it is.

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that this conclusion does not follow from the premiss? — Banno

Not only that, the conclusion undermines the premises. How does he know that robins see differently if no one, including him, sees the world? To know that would entail seeing the world in the reaching of that premise.

I'll add also that the issue is not binary. It's not either we see the world perfectly or we don't see the world.

And then what you said.

I think that's generally a part of creativity. And via non-logical processes it something new is present. Is it completely new? Like not made ultimately of quarks or sharing no characteristics with what has gone before, no. Thjat's the creativity of a deity. We don't have to invent a new geometrical shape,new kind of matter and em radiation to create. We build and combine and new things emerge, some with emergent properties. That's the kind of creation we non-deities have access to. New things rather than things that have no connection to anything that ever existed before.

Who is to know Buddhism is right or wrong? You're going to have to follow, to a great degree your intuition. I would suggest that anyone actually engaging in the practices and community of Buddhism, will realize that my advice is aligned with Buddhist teaching. It takes experience to know if advice is right and in this case intuition.

I conclude that nobody can see the world as it is. — Daemon

It's not binary. I mean, even color blind men can often run through a field with holes, grass lumps, and cow poop and thistles and reach the other side, even after running at great speed, with no injuries and still shiny nikes. It sure seems like to some degree they are seeing the world. And to that degree or in those ways also incredibly well.

and as a tangent, if you believe that we do not see the world as it is (period), then you must think that art, in fact all art, is creative (at least I think so)...re:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9835/can-art-be-called-creative/p1

I thought he lied.