For the bird, yes.
It's that theme -- "Jemand musste Josef K. verleumdet haben". That "they're going to get you, they're going to bring you down". And "Gib's auf!".

Both are highly devolved — Kenosha Kid

How is the EU devolved?

I see it as Kafka's usual theme of impending doom and helplessness in the face of it, and the cynical resignation toward this prospect.

I'm a psychology student and I'm curious about the reason(s) why so many people on the right feel aligned with Peterson. — deusidex

Look at him: that characteristic earnest face, the tense body, never really smiling, a certain coldness and distance in his demeanor. It's what right-wingers, esp. those who are more far out on the right tend to have in common.


If you're a psychology student, you should be able to have access to many studies of the psychology of right-wingers, and specifically of right-wing authoritarians.

E.g.
The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes.

Egocentric victimhood is linked to support for Trump, study finds

I recently wrote an article about karma and I am curious about your thoughts on it. — Mind Dough

What is the source of your ideas about karma?

I see you mention Sadhguru and you spell "karma" (not the Pali "kamma").

No, the EU is not a country.

which do you favor — Pfhorrest

This assumes that one believes that one's preferences in political things somehow matter.
What about those people who have altogether lost hope in politics, and who therefore have no preferences about it?

And then there are those whose political preferences may be completely unrealistic/utopian/dystopian (and they know them to be such), but who refuse to settle for any of the options given in the poll?

That's a bizarre claim to make in relation to a religious text.
Religion is dogma to which one is supposed to align oneself. It's not something to discover, or verify.
— baker

Sorry, this is most emphatically wrong. — Constance

Fortunately or unfortunately, no. The system of religious beliefs and practices is a closed, self-referential system that works by the principle of self-confirmation: one starts off by taking for granted that what the religion teaches is true and that "it works", and then one does the practices, and then one comes out "convinced" that is is true and that "it works".

It's like the science "experiments" that children do in science classes in school: the children don't actually discover anything, don't learn anything "on their own". What they do is they internalize the scientific terms and processes and then they learn to see the world through the lens of those terms and processes.

Well, that was a short conversation. — Wayfarer

Why sugarcoat the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?

A part of the Vows is about vowing to do things that are otherwise considered wrong or harmful, but still one should do them for the sake of the "spiritual wellbeing" of those who end up on the receiving end of those actions.

Would you like to be on the receiving end of those actions? A Mahayani coming along and beating you up and feeling justified to do so because he's sure that this will be to your benefit??

Buddhism realized this in its own way centuries ago, but phenomenology gave Buddhism its meta-discussion.
— Constance

Check this article out — Wayfarer

And this one:
Nascent speculative non-buddhism
(You don't have to fill in anything, just click download)

After all, the actuality of the world, the "presence" of being here, cannot be spoken, and if a person can realize this at the perceptual level, that is, in the plain apprehension of objects in the world, in the midst of implicit knowledge events there is the palpable mystery in all things, and one experiences an extraordinary intimation of depth and profundity, then one knows without a doubt s/he is in the proximity of enlightenment, though its consummation may be light years away. It is what inspires one to move forward, do the hard work endlessly looking. — Constance

Sure. But I don't see how you can do any of this in some relation to Buddhism. Neither the Buddha nor Buddhists would tolerate you doing that in their presence. What you describe is something they criticize severely.

I think you're assuming far more familiarity with and acceptance from the Buddha and the Buddhists than is warranted.

I don't think the Pali canon is the exclusive vehicle for this at all.

It's not a vehicle for what you're describing at all.

That's not what the Mahāyāna says of itself, although it is what the Theravada says about it. — Wayfarer

Sure. And let's not forget that Mahayana is the "Buddhist" tradition that came up with a "spiritual" justification for killing, raping, and pillaging. I'm talking about the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows, of course.

The Buddha of the Pali Canon is not like that. He's an aristocrat, authoritarian, dogmatic.
— baker

I think that's completely incorrect. Having renounced his family and household, he also renounced any aristocratic rank, and besides there are questions as to whether his lineage really was aristocratic. The Sangha was open to members of all castes, which is one of the reasons Buddhism died out in India. And he was not authoritarian, as anyone was free to join the Sangha - sure, they would be expelled for breaking the monastic code, but that is not 'authoritarianism'.

Really? The Buddha of the Pali Canon who in the beginning, after he attained enlightenment, didn't want to teach at all, because he concluded from his first post-enlightenment experiences with humans that humans are just too stupid and too worthless to be taught?
The Buddha of the Pali Canon who was very liberal with the use of the word "fool" for people?
The Buddha of the Pali Canon who decided who was good enough to be taught by him and who wasn't?
The Buddha of the Pali Canon who is continually referred to with epithets like "the Blessed One", "the Rightfully Self-enlightened One"?

These strike you as not aristocratic, not authoritarian, not dogmatic?

Unrelated to that, my encounters with Buddhists from different schools support this.


Based on my reading of the Pali Canon, the Buddha is definitely not someone for whom I would say something like "I think if the Buddha were here with us now, he would agree: all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing."

I asked you about this:

I think if the Buddha were here with us now, he would agree: all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing. — Constance

Based on what do you think that??


I think you're looking at the Buddha in a very romantic, idealistic way. A modern re-imagining: egalitarian, politically correct, democratic. Non-sexist.
The Buddha of the Pali Canon is not like that. He's an aristocrat, authoritarian, dogmatic. Even when he goes for alms or sleeps in the forest covered with leaves.
The Buddha of the Pali Canon doesn't care how you're doing or what your "hopes and dreams" are. You think he would agree that all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing? No, he's not a New Ager.


There are many metadiscussions of Buddhism. Starting with the ones in traditionally Buddhist Asian cultures. Then the metadiscussions in the many Western imports/exports of Buddhism that try so hard to make Buddhism seem palatable to modern Western sensitivities, that try so hard to present it as the one religion that isn't really a religion, but a philosophy.

But as one reimagines the Buddha and Buddhism this way, selectively regarding old sources, keeping things one likes, discarding those one doesn't, making changes here and there, as one prefers: What is the result of that? Is that something that can be relied on as a path to liberation?

The old tradition (that can be traced back to the historical Buddha and his disciples) came with a declaration of a guarantee: Do things the way you're told, the way preserved by the tradition, and this is your best bet to become liberated.
One might accept that guarantee, or not; but at least it's there and has some historical validity.

But the new reimaginings can offer no such guarantee. This is free-style, anything-goes, reinventing-the-W/wheel kind of "Buddhism". An ivory tower populated mostly by youngish able-bodied males who told society to go suck on a lemon and escaped into their own minds. Are they enlightened? Are they liberated? Maybe they even are, but they sure can't teach others how to become liberated as well.

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities). — Roger Gregoire

And then infect the vulnerable.

History or centuries don't teach lessons.
People choose to take from them whatever lesson they want or consider relevant.

Sorry, I had on intention to disrupt. When I first started reading the debate, it seemed oddly familiar, and now I remembered why: I had a Christian "friend" who, over the years, went to great lengths in trying to convert me. His style was to produce a science-inspired or philosophy-inspired argument, parts of which were indisputable and to which I agreed, and then he'd go for the jugular. I didn't convert. But now and then I notice and become aware of the consequences (and damage) that being exposed to his conversion effors left on me. Your debate about propositions was one such instance.

You seem to think that distinguishing between the vulnerable and the healthy is easy (enough), and that it is easy (enough) to effectively separate them.

It's not clear that this is the case.

Nevertheless, an outlook that promotes rationality to the exclusion of emotions seems to miss the point of what it is to be human. — TheMadFool

Not _exclusion_ of emotions, but one that promotes finer, nobler emotions, and also an outlook that promotes greater emotional literacy.

You seem to have this strange idea that unless one has tantrums, one isn't showing emotion at all.

As if only this was emotion:
https://media.tenor.com/images/20a6c063f322099ce399ae9d4994a522/tenor.gif

but not this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/80/ed/49/80ed493b48e50935c1d07e3cdb837edf.gif

I understand why you want to obscure it. — frank

He's just a supremacist, not specifically a white supremacist. Right-wingers tend to be authoritarian, supremacist: "I know and others don't know. I am honest, others are not. I see things as they really are, others do not. I am the arbiter of other people's reality."

But if we keep these people, or continue to keep and hide away our healthy (those that are immune via infection (with healthy immune systems) or via vaccination) socially isolated, then we have accomplished nothing. — Roger Gregoire

IIn the case of covid, the point of social distancing is to slow down the infection rate, so that the medical system doesn't collapse.


Secondly, who exactly are "the healthy"? If you look at obesity and diabetes rates (two major risks for covid complications), the healthy are actually a relatively small group.

I'm arguing that all belief is meaningful to the creature forming, having, and/or holding the belief; that all belief consists of correlations drawn between different things; that some language-less creatures have belief; that not all belief is propositional in content; that all our accounting practices of an other's belief(and our own) are propositional in form. — creativesoul

This holds true for religious belief as well.

Being economically disadvantaged, for instance, is no barrier to treating your neighbour better. — Kenosha Kid

Or so liberal common sense would have us believe.

But IRL, no good deed goes unpunished. What's the point of having one's mind operate by the humanist standards of secular academia, if that makes one a loser?

It sucks to be made to drink your own poison, doesn't it.

I'm saying that when people are in disadvantaged positions, there is, to say the least, no incentive to change their minds or to overcome their cognitive biases.
Do you disagree?

Seems to me that it's time for the entire country to go back to kindergarten and review some basic rules for carrying out a successful life. — synthesis

Eh?
Most people learn by kindergarten that it's dog eat dog world.

Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical. — Kenosha Kid

So, to go back to where this tangent started from:

Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage. — baker

When a person is not in a position of power, does it make sense or is it economical to retain biases that aren't to one's disadvantage?

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest. — counterpunch

When Patrick Jane or Gregory House do that, it's fun to watch and they solve cases and figure out the right diagnosis.
But when real people do it, it just means they're jerks. And nothing good comes out of it.

I'm worried about the left wing, post modernist, politically correct, anti-capitalist assault on western civilisation. — counterpunch

Oh, suffer. Poor you.

If God is with you, who can be against you?!

No I encounter bad faith arguments, and... — counterpunch

You have an infinite supply of chips on your shoulder.

Here's the difference between us. If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist. — counterpunch

I did an experiment with the George Floyd situation:
I didn't pay attention to it when it was on the news, and only saw the video of his arrest for the first time last week.

What I saw there was the police acting in bad faith (as the police often does) and a person who was helpless against that.


Unlike probably most posters here, I am not for the US, not from the UK, I am from a country that is some 99% white and the closest I've ever seen a black person is in a tv or newspaper commercial.

I, in effect am, "color blind", but not because of political orientation, but simply because growing up in a monoracial culture where race is never or only rarely an issue can make a person not focus on skin color/race at all. Our official identification documents issued by the state do not contain a race description. Unlike US ones.

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest. — counterpunch

IOW, you approach communication in bad faith.

What could you possibly expect in return??

Death (nonexistence) before dishonor (feeling). Precisely my point. — TheMadFool

*sigh*

I get that and it's a great point, but it seems a bit in-your-face. Perhaps it's just that moral corruption is so deeply ingrained at this point that nobody really cares (similar to the political sphere where people expect the worst and that's exactly what they get). — synthesis

There are also technological advancements that have changed some aspects of sports. For example, instant replay on the spot so that a referee can look it up and only then make a decision, is a relatively recent thing. In soccer, for example, many opposed the use of instant replay. We can guess why.

I've also heard from an amateur soccer player that faking fouls, outs etc. is standard practice, simply part of the game.

I think if the Buddha were here with us now, he would agree: all of our endeavors are at the most basic level, a yearning for this extraordinary one thing. — Constance

Based on what do you think that??

What have you heard about the Buddha, and which can reasonably be ascribed to the Buddha, that makes you think the above?

*sigh*

Jeering and ridicule simply don't work and tell far more about the person doing it than the object of ridicule. — ssu

I used to think so too. But in the last four years, I've been beginning to change my opinion.
Being civilized is simply overrated.

Revenge!

As opposed to only seeing things in black, like lefty political correctness freaks do? — counterpunch

Oh, orange is the new black ...

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
/.../
You better believe it! — unenlightened

When put that way, what was the gist of the motivation for the debate about whether beilef is propositional or not?

I got the feeling that it was about whether belief in God (and other religious claims) is justified.

My feeling could be wrong, of course.

Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, it's their special power to see things in black-and-white like that.