To me there's a class aspect and a quality aspect to the high-art / pop-art distinction. I consider Bukowksi a first-rate novelist and so 'high art' in terms of quality. I expect him to eventually be in a Norton anthology of American literature (along with John Fante and Henry Miller).

Do you think that distinction could be breaking down? — j0e

I suppose so. The mixing of the high and the profane has been going on for quite some time, actually.

I think Banksy's stuff is cute and clever at times but not so great. But rich people want it. Are they slumming?

I think the people who buy such works do so because they see a lucrative investment in it, not because of the art.
Also, many rich people are actually the nouveau riche, social climbers who have money but lack class. I wouldn't value art by how much it sells.

The trouble for me is that it's as if your are putting car mechanics and sages in the same bin. Actually I like the idea myself, but I don't think a certain kind defender of esoteric knowledge (Wayf, for instance) has mere skill in mind but something more exalted. — j0e

If a particular type of knowledge cannot be attained through deliberate effort, then what use is it, and what use is it to pursue it?

A knowledge that cannot be attained through deliberate effort is a happy accident, a freak of nature. It's something one might watch in awe, but that's it.

If people are given freedom, they'll use it create chains and bind themselves in tribes.

It's not clear that this is the order in which things happen.

I pretty much agree with you. Joe, and I have been arguing as much on here for quite a while. I think such "certain direct knowledge" consists merely. must consist merely, in a feeling of certainty.

Such certainty, since it is neither tautologically true nor empirically verifiable cannot be anything other than mere faith, even though it may be accompanied by a feeling of absolute (well. subjective, really even if felt to be absolute) certitude. — Janus

What I find relevant is that people can be enthralled by others' claims of exalted knowledge.
Why is that?

Does one feel captivated by "sages" out of one's deep sense of inadequacy, low self-esteem?
Or is there more to it?

Which is why I have generally defaulted to: show me the difference it makes? Show me a life transformed. The people I have met who were all about the contemplative life, searching for mystical insights were often in pretty poor shape. Jealousy, anxiety, substance use, vanity - were prevalent. The elitism inherent in the lives of many spiritually attuned folk is interesting too. People trying to demonstrate how much closer they were to understanding Taoism or Zen, or better at mediation, or more in touch with 'genuine' Gnosis - looking down on ordinary people who were wallowing in ignorant materialism, etc, etc.

Are the sages any different? And how would we know? — Tom Storm

I remember hearing from a Catholic source that the Catholic saints are actually people who were usually saintly for a relatively short time in their lives (even for as little as just a few hours), and not, as the title "saint" suggests, 24/7. Perhaps this puts things into perspective a bit.

So there’s at least an implicit distinction between the Buddhas, and in later Buddhism, the Bodhisattvas, and the ‘uneducated worldling’ (the ordinary people.) Although again an uneducated worldling could by joining the order or practicing the principles, become enlightened - there is a canonical case of a bandit-murderer who used to wear a necklace of the fingers of his victims who converted (bearing in mind, these texts are from ancient history.)

Is that a hierarchy? I don’t know, but I think it can be said there is a ‘dimension of value’ or an axis along which the sense of there being higher and lower understanding can be identified, with the ‘higher’ being more amenable to detachment, disinterestedness, and the other virtues associated with the Buddhist path. — Wayfarer

The most essential hierarchy in Buddhism is that of the three types of buddhas/buddhahood:
1. the sammāsambuddha
2. the arahant
3. paccekabuddha

There can be only one sammāsambuddha per time period (in our time period, this is said to be the Buddha who started out as Prince Siddhattha); this is the most exalted position and one cannot choose to become that type of buddha or attain that kind of enlightenment.
One also cannot choose to become a paccekabuddha, as that status is available only to those who live in a time when the Dhamma dispensation of the previous sammāsambuddha has died out.
The most that a person can attain who is living in a time when the Dhamma dispensation of a sammāsambuddha is still alive, is arahantship. An arahant's knowledge is like a handful of leaves, in comparison to the sammāsambuddha's, whose knowledge is like the whole forest.

The practical implication of this hierarchy is that, if you accept it, you "know your place" and adjust your expectations as to what is possible and attainable for you.

I met a man 20 years ago who was the most optimistic, buoyant and kind person I have ever met. He'd lost a leg 10 years earlier in a bike accident. I asked him how he remained so positive. He said loosing his leg was the best thing that ever happened to him. Before then he had been morose and a heavy drinker. Losing his leg made him confront some difficult truths about the preciousness of life and, because he didn't die in the accident, the misfortune functioned as an aphrodisiac for living. I would not recommend that people who are morose and depressed go out and loose a leg. But that might be the lesson. — Tom Storm

I find such lessons are useless unless one has experienced such a traumatic situation oneself, and then "grew from it."

You can see this phenomenon in some popular spiritual teachers, who, basically, experienced a psychotic breakdown, and then "emerged wise" from it. I have no doubt that posttraumatic growth is possible. But look at what such spiritual teachers teach and look at their personal history: it's clear that they didn't arrive at their level of attainment by following the advice and doing the practices that they advise their followers to do. No. That psychotic breakdown was what made the difference for them.

What is gained by living a contemplative life? — Tom Storm

Presumably, by living it the right way, one attains true happiness, the complete cessation of suffering.

There are benefits but not necessarily personal gains. The first Buddhist book I read was the very popular book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. It stresses 'giving up gaining ideas' while practising zazen. I came to realise that this attitude is what makes it a 'religious' practice, in the sense that it requires devotion, while not seeking to get something from it. This has to do with the dynamics of ego - so long as the self is concerned for itself, then that is self-centered motivation. Practicing for no personal gain is altruistic motivation. — Wayfarer

This is one of the major points where the different Buddhist schools differ.
In the Theravada Forest Tradition, you can find teachers who teach that there very much are things to be gained, goals to attain. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example; Ajahn Chah's tradition not so much.
Also, altruistic motivation is just one factor; in Theravada, a minor one, in Mahayana, the major one.

In none of those cultures had the fact-value dichotomy, which became apparent in Hume, appeared. In those other cultures, sound judgement, or sagacity, did not only concern those matters which could be measured. It's the development of that outlook, in which facts and values became separated, that I think is the historical issue at hand. — Wayfarer

I see a parallel in the way art has been perceived in European culture: over time, there emerged a clear distinction between folk art (or popular art) and high art (academic art, art proper). There is the sense that folk art (or popular art) is what people do when they don't have the education, the skill, the talent, and the socio-economic status to do proper art. With that, folk art (or popular art) is also devalued, discredited, as "not actually art".
(This distinction doesn't seem to be so sharp in American culture, though.)

The phenomenon of sages is in comparison to "proper wise men" like folk art (or popular art) is to high art (academic art, art proper).

I can categorically say that I don't think Jung had a single interesting thing to say. — Isaac

Heh. If one is familiar with European culture at the time, Jung's and Freud's work are nothing special, they're just part of the "spirit of the time". It's when someone's work or persona is taken out of the context of their time that they can seem special.

It's like if you were to place a member of the aristocracy at a party where everyone else is a commoner, the aristoract would stand out by their behavior, clothes, etc. But if that same aristocrat would be at a party with oter aristocrats, they'd blend in, be nothing special.

I don't know Mahler well, but his name makes me think of Bukowksi, who loved to drink and smoke and write to Mahler on the radio. — j0e

This is so peculiar. By European standards, Mahler is high art, and Bukowski is popular art. Not comparable at all. The same person cannot appreciate both (unless they are confused).

How self-assured does that claim need to be for you to abandon communication? If someone came up to you and said "Hi, I'm a Buddhist Oshō" would that be sufficient claim to exalted epistemic status for you to just walk away? Or do they have to actually say "...and I know things you don't"? — Isaac

It's very simple: Such people don't engage in dialogue to begin with. They just preach. It's one-way communication. They declare their exalted status and move on.

In a sense, it is impossible not to make any choices, that does seem correct.

If I remained sitting in a chair without moving an inch and not saying anything until I starve to death, then one could say I chose to not do anything. But we would not say that I'm “acting” right? Because I would not be doing anything besides what does not depend upon my will (i.e breathing, seeing, ...) — Amalac

It depends on how narrowly you want to define "action". Whether you limit it only to (some) bodily actions, or whether you include the mental and the verbal (when you think or speak, this is doing, it's action).

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel faced with a decision, like when you're at a crossroads, but then you plump yourself down, you're actively procrastinating, doing things to avoid making a decision about which way to go.
(Which is different from resting simply because you're tired.)

What I think is of interest is the social role of such claims. Are we to take them at face value and ignore the clear social advantage of claiming higher knowledge which only you can access and such can't even be tested? — Isaac

Well, people love to mess with eachother's minds, that's for sure.

The story goes that when the Buddha first became enlightened, he went out and proclaimed that he was enlightened to the first person he met. The man shook his head, said, "May it be so", and went his way. The story says that the Buddha was disappointed by this. Long story short, he then changed his strategy and didn't flaunt his exalted status anymore.

When I see someone flaunt their supposed exalted status, I try to just shake my head and go my way. There's just no meaningful communication to be had with someone who claims to have an exalted epistemic (or other) status. (This goes for some philosophy professors and scientists as well.)

What sense we can make of claims to an 'insider' knowledge that's only accessible to a higher kind of person, a born sage, let's say? — j0e

That this is the domain of the non-academic.

I think you are on to something, so I guess I was trying to build a bridge between you and Isaac.
The Catholic church and Christianity in general lost much of its power, and religion became a private matter. Agreed. Pluralism reigns now. Everyone brews up their own religion or anti-religion. The thought-police aren't allowed to bother us in this private sphere. So the sense of one right way or 'objective' values has presumably decayed (hard to say how variously people actually felt and thought given censorship.) — j0e

Not at all. Now we have democracy, which is forcing us into sameness and simplistically formed camps, for bare survival. We are pluralistic and we welcome variety: as long as it is superficial.
The process of enslavement is complete once the enslaved believe themselves to be free. We are now our own thought-police. We actually do believe that there is one right way to do things.

Personally I want to live in Denmark — j0e

You think it's stopped rotting by now?

Anyone who has spent any time around actual Buddhists will find it absurd to the utmost to think that Buddhism and Communism or Marxism could somehow go hand in hand. Jesus, no. Except for some California Buddhist hippies, the other, the normal Buddhists, are elitist, capitalist, classist, authoritarian.

Bah, no. Eh. Buddhism is elitist.

As you go about your business choosing a job or a partner or buying a house or selecting food off a menu, the questions of philosophy don't and can't enter into it. — Tom Storm

Well, that's bizarre ...

It is impossible not to act. Even plumping oneself down at a crossroads is an action.

Note that you mention guilds. Those make perfect sense to me. That's peer review! That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. That's skill recognizing skill. My criticism of Direct Experience is not that it fails to gesture at something vague but important but that any kind of sociality needs more. — j0e

Religious/spiritual communities function like guilds. Religious/spiritual practices are intended to be taken up within the context of a religious/spiritual community.

On principle, doing things all on one's own, without any connection to a religious/spiritual community is possible, but such isolated approach is generally considered an exception, no the rule.

Also, it is not the case that people would flock together and build religious/spiritual communities based on having comparable direct experiences. Religious/spiritual life isn't a #MeToo kind of movement. Rather, people have some vague interest in some type of religion/spirituality, they join a group, a community, there, they get instructions for practices, they do the practices, and then they have "direct experiences". Which they can then compare, if they feel so inclined, or not.

That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. — j0e

I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha
Do tell me what you think of it.

What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge' ? — j0e

It's, basically, what religion/spirituality is all about.

Great topic, but I have to go for today. Stuff to bake.

So if there was no real insult thrown at you personally, is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1

At a forum like this, a part (or sometimes most) of one's verbal performance is about performing for an audience, not for the poster one is replying to. So the insults etc. aren't necessarily part of one's argument, just part of one's performance, depending on who one is trying to impress.

But what of the imperfect florist? The aspirant florist? I can imagine ego-battles at the florist convention. — j0e

Oh, the unenlightened florist who hasn't yet learned how to chop wood and carry water again.

Is it a performative contradiction to try to defend/explain the esoteric in a 'neutral' or boringly, typically 'rational' conversation?

Yesssss. I'm guilty of it too. But, in my defense, I'm aware of it, and taking credit for it.

Does 'nondiscursive knowledge' make sense ? I could live with 'religion as know-how' but that's not the claim, I don't think. 'The world is a purple rose' is a Higher Truth. No doubt it can function internally (all florist nod and repeat it) but if it's not for godless philosophers to understand, then why bring it to the table? Or how can one do this and avoid evangelizing?

When one learns how to chop wood and carry water again ...

Second point: I think people want recognition, sometimes (impossibly) for being beyond the need for recognition. I don't deny that some can temporarily truly be beyond that need. It's even an ego-ideal to transcend such a humiliating itch.

It takes a while to get to that point where Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan is:

I understand Baker's quote. It just seems to stretch the meaning of 'investigation.' The notion of 'Direct Experience' is an epistemic disaster. Think of the strong criticisms of sense-data empiricism. This stuff is private by definition, so it makes an absurd foundation for science, however initially plausible. Instead we have to start with (theory-laden) observation statements. — j0e

Take a more down-to-earth example of a "private investigation": Recovering after an injury. You, with your particular injury, with your particular socio-economic givens, with your particular psychological and other givens are the subject of the investigation required for recovery. First you'll have to spend the time somehow when immobilized, and then you'll have to retrain the injured limb. Take care of all the changes in your life that have occured because of the injury. And throughout all this time and effort, you will have to think about things, act in very specific ways. You will have to investigate.

Granted there are journeys into the interior, the self making sense of the self, we can still talk about what 'self' is supposed to mean here and how language works. I think the issue is trying to be philosophical and rational and at the same time gesturing beyond rationality. It's as if the mystic can't leave behind the desire to be recognized as some sort of scientist of the interior, hence metaphors like 'truth' and 'knowledge' for something that's also called 'mythos' or 'gnosis.'

I think a big part of the problem is the trend toward general democratization, egalitarization: the idea that just anyone should be able to have access to just anything, on their own terms. Initiation (whether in religion/spirituality, or in the trades and other professional fields) serves some important purposes. It's not just about protecting the "secrets of the trade" or "keeping out the unwanted", it's also for the purpose of not confusing the uninitiated.

Unfortunately, the result of this trend toward general democratization, egalitarization is plebeification and a devaluation of knowledge of a particular field, along with the normalization of lowering the standards of knowledge. Which, at best, leads to a lot of poorly spent time and the blooming of people's egos, and at worse, to dangerous situations (when people don't understand the importance of knowing and doing things properly).

One issue is that a science of the the interior is only possible with the assumption of similarity, but such an assumption cannot be justified via Direct Experience.

Imagine what would happen to the economy if there would be no guilds (with all their functions of preserving and advancing knowledge of a particular field of expertise, making sure that their practitioners live up to the standards of the trade, and so on): it would collapse, or produce relatively low quality items.
It's what is happening to religion/spirituality.

How does one florist convince another that she too has had the Direct Experience of the world as a purple rose? — j0e

The florist feels no such need to convince others.

That's a good example. I think intuitively we'd all want to say that the woman in question was suffering from some mental health issues and would possibly benefit from psychiatric help.
— Isaac

It seems a little wacky to me too. But perhaps our florist is happy. Then I'd classify it as more of the usual human vanity. The woman probably obeys traffic rules and is nice to babies. It's only when you get her started on flowers that she's harmlessly mad. A very nice person recently told me she believes in fairies. — j0e

Yes, absolutely. I classify such utterances under "poetic ontology", "poetic epistemology", and other poetic suches. There's plenty of this in literature. It doesn't occur to me to think of the utterers of such utterances as having "mental health problems".

See the beans in my hand in my avatar? I grow them. There is something absolutely transcendental to growing food and other plants. I'm just very careful about what I say about this to whom and when. There are other gardeners who understand very well what I'm talking about. And I know there are people (some of whom garden) who have no clue what I'm talking about.

God is omnimax, by definition. One of the implications of this is that nothing in this universe can exist without God willing it and making it possible.

I’ve observed that when people point out the fact of our insignificance, our relatively small size and that of our planet when compared to the size of the multi/universe is often offered as evidence of this. — Pinprick

It has been my observation that people say this when they don't want to get involved in the conversation, or when they try to present a problem as smaller than it is. "Yes, sure, you have a very bad toothache and you need to go the the dentist, but you don't have the money for it. But hey, human problems are insignificant in this vast universe!"

That does not follow. Obviously we did not create ourselves (nor did God create himself). But it does not follow from God's omnipotence and omniscience that he created us. If we, like God himself, exist with aseity, that is consistent with God being omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Problem solved. God does not author sin, we do. — Bartricks

No. Nothing in this universe can exist without God willing it and making it possible.

Well, you've got that smug confidence. Unfortunately, said confidence doesn't guarantee knowledge of God ... or anything else, for that matter. But it helps you to stay childless. Now that's a twofer!

Are you sure you're not confusing 'addressing' with 'accounting for'? — Isaac

Science, religion, economics, art theory, etc. -- they (can) all claim to account for the meaning of life, and not merely address it, indeed.

That religion claims to account for the meaning of life is not an indication that it actually does account for the meaning of life. It tells us the subject matter of it's investigation, not the success of the outcome.

(Leaving aside that threats of eternal damnation, or simply being burnt alive upside down in a public square have considerable persuasion power --)
I agree.

That science does not account for the meaning of life has no bearing whatsoever on whether non-scientific endeavours do account for the meaning of life. It tells us only what science doesn't do. It remains possible that all other endeavours don't do it either.

Agreed.

If non-scientists can claim that science does not account for the meaning of life from outside of its practices, then the non-religious can claim that religion does not account for the meaning of life from outside of its practices.

Yes, but the relations between those claimants are likely going to be rather tense.

One mustn't take religion so seriously, or at face value. Yes, reliigions appear to have enormous power and influence, and they can do horrible things -- but this is still no reason to take their claims at face value.

I can sort of see that. Just not sure why you're doing it in reply to my posts. — Isaac

It's not just in reply to your posts. It's something I've been working out for myself. Maybe someone else benefits as well.

Are they really the only options you see? Either a gut feeling guess or a full blown scientific investigation? What about a rough, informed-but-not-expert, examination of the general picture?

I think that in some matters, esp. in religion, those are the only options.
Also, why would you need that kind of rough, informed-but-not-expert, examination of the general picture?

But neither of those negations have any bearing on the matter of whether you can do it for you. Maybe you can't do it for you either, maybe no one can do it for anyone.

Of course. Such are the prospects of any practice.
(But as long as one doesn't believe in eternal damnation, things aren't that bad.)

Could you sketch out where you see the problem with such prospective failure?

So? — Bartricks

So your "God" is indistinguishable from being a mere figment of your imagination. And since you deny any relation to religion, your "God" is a mere figment of your imagination. And being a mere figment of your imagination it can do and be whatever you want it to do and be. It can favor antinatalism, if you want it to, yay!


The religious theists are at least bound to some code external to them, so they can't just make stuff up and ascribe to God whatever they want.

2. However much I learn about the objective world I can never know what it is like to be a bat. — Aoife Jones

How do you know that??

2. No matter how much I learn about the subjective world, I will never know what it means to be human. — SimpleUser

How do you know that??
The above two premises strike me as undecidable.

The premises one uses should be true, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.

But the point about the scientific perspective is that it is third-person by design. It is what any observer will see, all things being equal. It presumes the subject-object relationship i.e. ‘I see it’. — Wayfarer

While in religion/spirituality, "you" are the object of your investigation.
Noone can do that for you, nor can you do it for anyone else.

By having confidence in yourself, believing that you exist for a reason, that you're a worthy person, and so on. Yes, cheap self-help slogans, I know. But I'm earnest about this. It's a contextual reply to your question.
A philosophical quest for the truth, for "knowing how things really are" can sometimes turn into a self-perpetuating obsession that makes one's life miserable. It can start off out of a poor self-image, or it can result in one (and then further perpetuate it and itself).
— baker

I've no idea how this addresses what I said. Perhaps you could expand. — Isaac

I'm trying to give a context for approaching religion, a context that tries to make sure that one's involvement with religion isn't going to become something ill.

That's a good example. I think intuitively we'd all want to say that the woman in question was suffering from some mental health issues and would possibly benefit from psychiatric help. — Isaac

Eh.

There's been a tendency to exempt religions on the grounds of numbers (that many people can't all be mad).

What I'm doing is that I try to establish a healthy and safe distance toward religion. I'm not defending it.

But yeah, personally, I don't really see any other way out of it. There's no denying the difference between some lunatic believing in their own fantasy world and a religious claim is the number of people ho go along with it, and that does make claims about the success of religious practice empirical, otherwise the lunatic gets their fair shake too.

That's where one's self-confidence comes in and intuitively deciding that some claims aren't worth one's time, or are otherwise none of one's business.
One will simply crash and burn if one wishes to give all claims a "fair hearing" or approach them scientifically, testing them or requesting evidence for them.

By having confidence in yourself, believing that you exist for a reason, that you're a worthy person, and so on. Yes, cheap self-help slogans, I know. But I'm earnest about this.
— baker

I think you are right that religion offers some people these things. — j0e

No. I'm saying one has to have those things, or else getting involved with religion is going to squish one.

I don't agree with Marx entirely, and personally I think humans can get just as entangled with conspiracy theory sans the supernatural for the same 'opium.' Perhaps even Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals, etc. I quote this to make the point that 'mythos and ritual that makes us feel good (but only if one really believes and practices a certain lifestyle)' is not so far from what an atheist might say.

I'm sometimes amazed by high-calibre thinkers like Marx, Weber, or Nietzsche because they don't account for the cunning of religious people. Instead, they talk of religious people as if a page from De Imitatione Christi were a template for them.

Doing a religious practice can never convince a person who doesn't already believe.
— baker

I lean toward agreeing with you, but I can imagine exceptions to this rule, depending on the practice. — j0e

Of course, it's possible to jump to conclusions, even encouraged sometimes.
I've seen this in Buddhism, for example, where there was a subtle pressure to conclude, after a few "good" meditation sessions, that the Buddha was enlightened and that the practice of meditation was the one true path to enlightenment.

That's the trouble with talk of objectivity and of subjective experience: it doesn't help anything. — Banno

And then there is the issue of power struggles between people. We could say that notions of subjectivity and objectivity are born of, created by the power struggle. But even if you do away with notions of subjectivity and objectivity, the power struggle remains, you're still a person in a power hierarchy, and you still have to look out for yourself.

Tying this to our earlier exchange about losers and winners: Feeling like a loser seems to go hand in hand with operating within the dichotomy subjective-objective. I'm not sure what would apply for those who see themselves as winners (possibly they also operate within said dichotomy). Much less can I imagine what it's like not to operate within this dichotomy at all.

They are not so much stated beliefs as sentiments; to be seen in music and art, not dissected by philosophers. — Banno

I agree. Although religious apologists sometimes go to great lengths to present them as objectively empirically testable propositions.

Nagel's point is trivially true: there are other creatures, they have different ways of experiencing the world, and we can't know what that's like just by studying those creatures.

That's totally non-controversial (or should be). — RogueAI

Actually, it is controversial.

It was controversial, for example, for Descartes who believed that animals have no feelings, don't feel pain, and that therefore, it was okay to torture them.
It has been controversial for so many peple who promote meat-eating.
It has been controversial for some many ists, such as for white supremacists who believe that black people aren't really humans and don't have human feelings.
I've known teachers who would refer to their students with "it", saying "it doesn't feel anything, it doesn't have a conscience".

Yes, Nagel's point is highly controversial. People are not likely to give up their belief in their supremacy over others, they're not easily going to give up their belief that they are the arbiters of another's reality.

1. There is something it is like to be a bat.
— Aoife Jones

Is there? How could you possibly know this? — Banno

Well, you're not a bat. Do you know what it's like to be a bat?

I think there is a better name for that - hint: one word, begins with 'b' 'B'. — Wayfarer

Sorry, I'm too daft, apparently, to discern the reference. B ...?

That's some insightful stuff, but Karen Armstrong promised religious 'truth'. How are we to understand a meaning of 'truth' which doesn't have a truthmaker? — Isaac

By having confidence in yourself, believing that you exist for a reason, that you're a worthy person, and so on. Yes, cheap self-help slogans, I know. But I'm earnest about this. It's a contextual reply to your question.
A philosophical quest for the truth, for "knowing how things really are" can sometimes turn into a self-perpetuating obsession that makes one's life miserable. It can start off out of a poor self-image, or it can result in one (and then further perpetuate it and itself).

As they say, Even though one might stand on the brink of a deep chasm of disaster, one is still obliged to dress for dinner.

I think that's true to an extent. My comments here were aimed at non-scientists (in the main), so the critique would still apply. If one needs to be embedded in Buddhist practice to be able to judge what it can and cannot discover, then we should expect to hear about the limits of neuroscience only from actual neuroscientists. Alternatively, if layman can say what neuroscience can't account for it seems one-sided to say the least to claim that I'd have to practice religion to be able to comment on what it can't account for. — Isaac

Insofar as someone is just repeating the claims of experts from a particular field, and is straightforward about doing so, it's not clear what the problem is. Other than perhaps that they're trying to gain some benefit for themselves, by association. I guess that's a philosophical-ish equivalent of name-dropping at a party.

As such, the claim here, oft repeated, that science does not account for X in the way that religion/phenomenology/woo does, can only come from a Buddhist neuroscientist!

Re: underline part: Sure, and this is trivially true. Science does not account for, say, the meaning of life the way religion does, nor the way economics or art theory do. One needn't be an expert in either field in order to notice this.

It's not just the old science vs. woo, mind you. In many fields of human interest, but which are of vital importance to many people, science is quite useless or inapplicable. Issues like "How to choose a worthwhile career?", "How to be happy in life?", "How to get along with others without being a doormat, but also not so aggressive as to alienate them?" are of vital importance to people, but even though these questions are studied scientifically, there isn't much use for those studies (too small a return for considerable investment). So people resort to other or additional ways of obtaining useful information on such issues. Advice of elders, traditions, self-help, ...

Hmmm. Excellent example. I had an almost identical experience. A local lawyer, 6 foot 6 and a real prick, did the exact same thing to me a few years ago. He clearly knew that he was in the wrong, however he didn't care. — Pantagruel

Just because someone says that they believe something doesn't mean that they actually do believe that, does it? This is the rather subtle question of mental state that I am investigating.

I think it comes down to why they say they believe something. On one end of the spectrum, there is the conman who, for the purposes of betraying others and getting money from them, will say anything that he thinks will sway his target in his favor. On the opposite end are probably those genuinely mentally ill people who are genuinely confused about things to the point that they can't function normally in daily life.

How much terminological precision can rightfully be expected from people? Most probably can't tell the difference between "believe", "know", "hope", "want", "expect" and instead use those words intuitively, esp. when they talk about things that are close to their heart.

Esp. "believe" still seems, for many people, to carry in it its old etymological meaning 'to hold dear'.

Yep. It remains an open question as to whether we ought follow the will of god; even were that will clearly manifest. — Banno

If there would be such a thing as the will of God, we would necessarily know it* and have no choice in the matter, unless he deliberately hid it from us.


*On account that he's omnibenevolent and thus wants us to know the truth.