Oh, and this:

I don't choose Mahayana over Hinayana. — Constance

To use the H-word, one must either be a Mahayani (supremacist), or someone who doesn't know what it means and how it is used in Buddhism.

As with any doctrine, one can either dogmatically receive it, then take this as an authoritative representation , disseminate what it says, learn by rote the utterances, divide into schools of thought, and call oneself a scholar. Or, one can talk the matter itself seriously, which means, while having respect for ancient ideas and those who founded them, realizing that these are interpretations of their own experiences and have no fixed, timeless say in the matters of determining what meditation is about, its nature and meaning, its revealed actualities. — Constance

This is a false dichotomy.

If someone wants to make up their own idea of enlightenment and the path toward it, that's their thing, and they have the freedom to do so. But it is misleading, to say the least, to then call this "Buddhism" or "what the Buddha really taught".

Because I am not arguing about who said what, when or where. I care little for this.

The point is that the teachings in the Pali Canon are regarded as being taught by an enlightened being, and a unique one at that, someone who is categorically different than an ordinary person. As such, it is assumed that the teachings in those texts contain insights that an ordinary person simply cannot have.

Later texts are taught by someone other than the Buddha, by people who may not even be enlightened. As such, they aren't assumed to have such insight and such value as those by the Rightfully Self-Enlightened One.

I only care about ideas and how they come into play in understanding the world and the rest is incidental. Now if I had the job of teaching this, it would be the same as it would be for Heidegger, Sartre, Levinas, Walt Whitman, Wordsworth, or anyone: incidental facts become part of the lecture.

You're missing the point. The Buddhist teachings in the Pali Canon aren't just "some more philosophy; yet another philosophical text"; that is, the texts themselves claim to be more than that.

Whether you accept them to be such is up to you. But when a text itself makes such claims about itself, it's not clear how come people so often ignore that bit and just go on reading it as if it was yet another text.

To give another example: If a text starts with, "These words were dictated to me by the Holy Spirit", do you just ignore this and other such references in the text, and try to independently establish whether what the text says is true or relevant or not?

I think it would be silly, to say the least, to take such self-referential, meta-textual claims at face value (or to try to establish whether they are true or not). But I also think it is wrong to ignore them. If a text basically makes the meta-textual claim about itself that amounts to, "This is not yet another philosophical text, and it shouldn't be read as such" -- then this is something I take seriously. That doesn't mean I believe what the text says, but it does mean I don't treat it as yet another philosophical text. This is what it means to recognize the genre of a text: a religious text is in some vital ways different and should be read differently than a philosophical or scientific or literary text.

Don't be silly. No one is making things up.

You're not serious.


What amazes me the most in relation to Buddhism is how ready people are to bastardize it. Orignally, in the Pali Canon, a path of practice toward enlightenment is layed out, in considerable detail. But despite that, so many people make up their own ideas of enlightenment, but nevertheless believe they are legitimized by the Buddha, and even call those ideas "Buddhist."

I am puzzled about how you see the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and psychedelia as lowering consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Because that music is either bestial naivete, or cynicism that belongs to the theatre of the absurd; neither is conducive to living a productive life, thus, it lowers consciousness.

what music do you believe raises it ?

Whatever music there might be that is conducive to living a productive life.
The kind of music one could listen to, for example, before going in for a job interview or when being told that one has terminal cancer, and that music would make one (more) able to do well in that interview or to live a meaningful life despite the terminal cancer.
AFAIK, there is no music that does that.

I would prefer that it not be seen at a battle at all, but if it's going to seem like some people are attacking you, instead of us all just cooperatively working on a puzzle together, then it's nice to have other people comforting and supporting you too. Someone to affirm that you're not completely crazy, that there's some worth and merit to your thoughts, even if there is also room for refinement. — Pfhorrest

I think one needs to be stronger than that, more self-confident, more self-efficacious.

Its always been a thing yes, but thats not the same as that thing becoming more widespread or significant. Im talking about the latter. — DingoJones

Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.

What do you think drives the social pressure for conformity?

Yes. I think that's true but this is one of the reasons why social media (all internet platforms really) might be such breeding grounds for extremism. Much of our bandwidth is occupied with the judgement of social relations - the intentions of others, their social position etc. It's supremely hard work (in terms of how much brain power it takes).

People use their resources differently in internet interactions, much information we'd normally use to judge someone's intent is unavailable so there's a theory that a lot of the behaviour popular online is an attempt to extract that kind of data from a medium we're not used to. Just a theory... — Isaac

While I agree, there's another, even simpler explanation, and that is that most people are not trained philosophers.
Philosophers are, ideally, supposed to have that characteristic critical distance towards claims, regardless whether those claims are made by themselves or by other people.

Yet typically, people, and that includes some of those who consider themselves philosophers or have advanced degrees in philosophy, feel very attached to their claims, see those claims as part of their identity, their property. So that when someone as much as addresses those ideas, those people feel like the other person has crossed the boundaries of the acceptable. This, of course, hobbles critical discussion.

I love the music of the 60s and so much of that was consciousness raising, including the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan and all the psychedelic bands. — Jack Cummins

"Consciousness raising"??!
The music that you mention is decadent and lowers one's consciousness.

I have known a couple of people who made art based on toilets and urinals. There may not be a strict division between the sacred and the profane. The quest may be to discover the beauty within madness. — Jack Cummins

I think the other poster is talking about installing a music player into the toilet room, so that when the toilet is flushed, music plays.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/524645/6000-toilet-warms-your-seat-plays-music-and-flushes-command

Also, I am asking about the responsibilities of the artist. To what extent is the artist just expressing personal feelings? Is there any danger if art, music or fiction is too 'dark', such as metal music? Does it matter what art we create? — Jack Cummins

Artists love to deny any and all responsibility. Art is a kind of caveat emptor affair, where all the responsibility lies on the audience.

I think these people do indeed deliberately join forums whose culture is generally opposed to theirs, deluded into thinking that they only need present what seems obvious to them and all 'right thinking' people will fall into line on reading such cold hard logic. — Isaac

(And they end up being called "trolls" by the forum members.)

People tend to be cognitive misers. They are willing expend only a little effort to understand other people, and they underestimate the effort a particular other person would need to make in order to understand them.

For that reason I try to give signs of encouragement to others I agree with in other threads, even if I'm not going to go to the effort of really engaging in their battle against their opponents. Just so they know that someone is on their side, and they're not alone. — Pfhorrest

If I don't have your sword, your bow, or your axe, then what use are your little words of support to me?

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly? — Isaac

Of course not.

Venues such as philosophy forums are essentially intended as echo chambers, and people visit them for that purpose.

Yes, I realize this sounds awfully derogatory. But think about it: Who would make a point of visiting and posting at a forum which they know to be very different from their own views?

They just didn't like being told what to do, or how to behave. — Philosophim

Who does??!


Esp. when being told what to do or how to behave by people who don't care about you, and who have made it clear that they don't care about you!

New posters and older posters alike get fed up and decide to foolishly dare the mods to enforce the guidelines.
What are people thoughts on why they do that? — DingoJones

I think there are two factors to this:
1. people who do that do so as the final act of making clear there are irreconcilable differences between themselves and the social group they're currently in,
and
2. these irreconcilable differences are taking place where there is a hirarchical social structure, a power differential, and the person in question is in a position of lesser power.

They could just leave, but some anger or frustration compelled them to

I think it's an act of getting closure to an unsatisfactory relationship.
Leaving quietly wouldn't give one closure.

So a sign of the times then? Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much?

Realizing that one is in the wrong place, and has been there for a long time, can look rather ugly.

Is it the nature of discourse, that some people just arent equipped for?

All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one.

It's a tough duplicitious dynamic to navigate.

Ok, but why haven’t I seen this on other similar forums? Is there something about this forum that attracts these sorts of people? — DingoJones

I've seen it elsewhere a few times. I don't know what was happening via PM's or the stuff that was deleted, so I can't know for sure, but the common point seems to be: authoritarian politically correct moderators.

Now, difference of opinion is a difference of good and evil in the hearts and minds of most people. — DingoJones

As far as I have seen, it's always been like that.

You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority. — Jack Cummins

You haven't been answering my questions.

Do you think hatred and prejudice are something idle and avoidable? That they serve no practical purpose?

The fact is that not even bare survival is guaranteed for anyone. Even in first-world countries, the possibility of dying in poverty and homelessness is becoming more and more prominent.

However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?

My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?

People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?

I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury.

Why, I wonder, should this original doctrine hold sway? — Constance

Why do you quote or cite anything, instead of just making stuff up and ascribe it to another person?

Go ahead and empty the self of its contents I like this on "annihilation":

There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves.
/..../
It doesn't go far enough, does it?

Hold your horses!



Do you believe that what you quoted there is Buddhist doctrine??

What you quoted there is in the Pali Canon listed as a standard example of wrong view, in contrast to Right View.
Annihilationism is wrong view.

This is annihilation, and the method is one of apophatic philosophy. My thoughts are that once the constructed self is eliminated, what remains is not nothing, but a depth of existence and well being that goes entirely beyond the pragmatic existence of everyday living. Nirvana, throughout the literature, confirms this.

This is Mahayana doctrine. Why choose Mahayana over the Pali Canon? Can you explain?

That is, those kinds of feelings of pleasure that result from enlightenment take continual effort. — Joshs

What concept of "enlightenment" are you talking about?

The actual Buddhist one, nibbana?

Because by the standards of early Buddhism, what you're describing isn't enlightenment/nibbana, it's something that isn't even the first jhana. It's more like getting to the point of pleasantly zoning out.

What makes ethics contingent is value's embeddedness in the muddy waters of things that are extraneous to value, as with beliefs, competitions for valued things, value hierarchies, ethical institutions, legal complications, political lying, and so on. The point is that beneath all this dynamic play of human affairs there is this stand alone foundation, and tis makes for moral realism. — Constance

The illustration above aside, what you're saying here seems to be in line with Adler's will to power, related to Nietzsche's Wille zur Macht.

If we start from the premise that what drives a person is a will to power, then this also lends support to moral realism.

all issues turn on what is at stake, and this is always value. — Constance

Agreed.

Anyway. what I have in mind is an ontology of value, a metavalue. Not at all interested in how things are practically worked out, how they get entangled with the affairs of others, with value hierarchies, and the the rest. These are important, of course, but not the concern here, where all simply want all eyes on the experience give a proper, objective analysis. My claim is that once all "accidental" matters are put aside, the particulars of entangled cases, there is the, as I have said, residual metaethical: the "badness" the pain, or the "goodness" of the pleasure. — Constance

So, if I'm understanding you correctly --

I'll illustrate on an example:
There are three major Viennese schools of psychology, classified by what a person's will is considered to be centered on:
the Freudian will to pleasure,
the Adlerian will to power,
the Franklean will to meaning.
The idea behind this classification is that a person is driven by will; there is difference as to what exactly that will is about, but the agreement is that the will is the essential driving force of a person and that this is the optimal way to approach psychological issues both theoretically and practically.

It seems to me that you are after a similar principle of classification as above (not specifically in terms of psychology, the example with the Viennese schools of psychology occured to me because it seems to be structually the same as what you're looking for).

Buddhists do not try to eradicate the self in order to achieve abstract nothingness. Beneath the self, so to speak, the empirically constructed self or memories, attachments, the "stream of consciousness", is joy, bliss unparalleled. There is nothing more palpable than this. — Constance

Nirvana? — Constance

The idea that the self = nirvana, or that once the defilements are done away with, what is left is pure goodness and joy, is an idea that can be found in some Buddhist circles (esp. in Mahayana, and modern developments of Buddhism), but to the best of my knowledge, it has no support in the Pali Canon (ie. the text that is generally considered the authoritative text of what the Buddha taught).

/.../
This is why the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down. If you assume that the mind is basically bad, you won't feel capable of following the path, and will tend to look for outside help to do the work for you. If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent.
/.../
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

Presumably further in the sense of getting closer to making an end to suffering; or at the minimum, going further in the sense of simply having more things to do, more activities at one's disposal.

I have come to the conclusion that the self is not illusory, but my strategy is not a familiar one: the self, the genuine self "behind" the empirically constructed self, if affirmed through ethics, that is, metaethics — Constance

When you put it like that, it sounds like atman.

But therein lies the rub: Buddhists do not try to eradicate the self in order to achieve abstract nothingness. Beneath the self, so to speak, the empirically constructed self or memories, attachments, the "stream of consciousness", is joy, bliss unparalleled. There is nothing more palpable than this. — Constance

I'm going to need a Buddhist canonical reference for this, please.

I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. — Jack Cummins

What is this belief based on?
Certainly not facts.

I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.

Then what about the evolutionary struggle for survival? Do you just dismiss it?

How do such normative affectivities as 'unconditionally intrinsic goodness', 'spontaneous compassion', 'luminosity', 'blissfulness', ' a calm and peaceful life guided by the fundamental value of nonviolence' emerge as ultimate outcomes of a mindfulness philosophy of groundlessness? — Joshs

Out of at least two possible sources: a deeply internalized humanism (the beliefs "people are basically good", "life is worth living", "the universe is a welcoming place for me and everyone else"), or/and a selective internalization of Buddhism.

Varela and Thompson's claim that Buddhist-originating practices of mindful awareness reorientate experiencing from a phenomenological ‘after the fact' theoretical stance to the immediate here and now centers on its techniques of attentive meditation.

I’ m arguing that they misunderstand phenomenology. — Joshs

And possibly Buddhism, too. At least in some Buddhist circles, "bare attention", "nonjudgmental awareness" and so on are heavily criticized. See, for example, the work of Thanissaro Bhikkhu or N. Nyanamoli Bhikkhu.
The Satipatthana Sutta has already been linked to earlier. When one meditates, one is supposed to meditate within a frame of reference, and not just navel-gaze. One is supposed to have "appropriate attention" which has a very specific meaning.
See here, for example: Mindfulness Defined by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Varela and Thompson's dissatisfaction with the phenomenologies of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger stems from their belief that phenomenology begins from intentional and reflective acts as derived and secondary constructions built on top of the immediate neutral pre-objectifying awareness performed by the act of mindful attention.

Buddhist meditation also begins with intentional and reflective acts. There is no such thing as "immediate neutral pre-objectifying awareness" in early Buddhism.

I’m not trying to discredit mindfulness , only to refute
Varela and Thompson’ s claim that the mindfulness tradition has the resources to go further
than phenomenology in accessing the immediacy of the here and now.

The mindfulness tradition can go further than phenomenology only because it has smuggled along things from Buddhism, without admitting to them.

My disagreement centers on the assumption that there is such a thing as neutral attention.

And many Buddhists agree.

Meditation is not simply a matter of bare attention. It is more a matter of appropriate attention, seeing experience in terms of the four noble truths and responding in line with the tasks appropriate to those truths: stress is to be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recollections.html

And there are still con artists who deny there is a leftist hegemony of the media. — Rafaella Leon

It's fantastic, the stuff that gets ascribed to the "Left" ...

Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? — Jack Cummins

Danger for whom? The superior person?

Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.

Two things:

1. Who gets to be the arbiter of which person is intrinsically better than some other person?

2. Would you say you're intrinsically better than, say, Hitler?

Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.

That is the whole point of superiority. There is no reason to think that a sense of superiority is not evolutionarily advantageous. Life is a struggle for survival, and in that struggle, deeming oneself superior to others is advantageous to one's survival.

Deeming oneself inferior - intrinsically inferior - is a recipe for failure.

What do you mean by "good"? For this, one has to go to the source, the primordial actuality, the "intuition" of pain or bliss and everything in between, the raw thereness, the value qualia--just take a hammer, bring it down hard on your kneecap and observe. You are not facing a fact, a caring, a negative judgment, an aversion, a denunciation, a condemnation, and so on. What is that there, in your midst, that screaming pain "itself"? — Constance

For one, I wouldn't deliberately hit myself with a hammer, tyvm, not even for a philosophical experiment!
I will remember some instances of where I injured myself when working in the garden. Such as when I accidentally hit myself with a handsaw on the back of my hand. The blade hit a vein; I've never seen so much blood! It was gushing out, I held the palm of the other hand below the wounded hand so as to not drip blood everywhere, and it was full in a few seconds. (The wound healed quickly, and a year later, there wasn't even a scar anymore.)

So, graphic details aside, what was there?

It hurt, but the hurt was overshadowed by the fear that the injury might be serious or that the wound will get infected.
There was also, "I need to take care of this wound."
And, "This shouldn't have happened."

What did you have in mind?

I think there are in principle reasons -- even self-interested reasons, so long as they care about anything at all -- for every person to care, in the long term, and the big picture, what is good. But people are often stupid and will do things that are against even their self-interest just because they couldn't be bothered to think about it. — Pfhorrest

I think it's more complex than mere stupidity. So much in social interaction is said and demanded between the lines, without it ever being explicitly stated, and people are used to this. People also hate to be pushed. Which leads to the stalemate situation where it is impossible to have a discussion without people reading it as some kind of demand. So for them, even a mere discussion is felt as an imposition. Which they would rather not comply with, simply because they don't like being pushed.

Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging. — Jack Cummins

But how can our own sense of superiority be damaging?
Can you explain, other than on the example of the Nazis?

You mention the Nazis. On the other hand, take parents, teachers, or doctors who routinely consider themselves superior to children/students/patients; without doing so, they couldn't do their job or fulfill their roles.

With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension.

Yes, but it later comes out that they believe they are superior, even though they are reluctant to openly admit it.

I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.

Actually, it seems this is the only viable path for judging/assessing others: to start with the position that one is superior to them. How else is one's judgment/assesment of others supposed to be relevant?

It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.

A psychologist deems himself superior to other people, at least to his patients.

Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others. — Jack Cummins

But then this points right back at you. How do you respond to that?

It stands outside the ethical dilemma, as an independent, unalterable, for the badness in play is not contextual, does not depend on anything form its being bad. — Constance

How about injuries to one's body that are intended as part of the greater good? Think, for example, of that mountainhiker who fell into a crevice, got stuck, and cut off his arm in order to free himself and get out.

All we need is some notion of what makes something closer to or further from correct in order to comparatively evaluate opinions and show that some are less correct than others. That doesn’t require we know what the completely correct one is, but it implies that there is such a thing as completely correct in principle, at the limit of less and less incorrect. — Pfhorrest

In daily social life, this works out in such a manner: the person who holds a position of more power gets to have the say over what is closer to objective reality than the person who has less power.

For an epistemic approach like yours to work in some meaningful way, people would need to at least temporarily be willing to put down their hierarchical roles and their expectation of deference, and work together for the greater good.
From what I've seen, people resent to do that.

I can see how your approach works for things -- such as for solving engineering problems.
But humans seem to be primarily interested in power games.

I would say wanting agreement precedes the meta consideration of whether or not a correct version exists. — khaled

Yes, because despite all the subjectivism, individualism, or relativism, or what is in-effect, solipsism, that so many swear by, they still cannot ignore that they are in some vital ways interconnected with other people and dependent on them for their livelihood.

The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others. — Jack Cummins

But you don't believe you are equal to the Nazis, or that the Nazis are equal to you, do you? Exactly.

You have to admit though, there is something grandiose about these claims of voting fraud.

On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself. — Jack Cummins

What if Hitler and other Nazis who committed suicide did so for stoic (sic!) reasons?

I have heard in WWII documentaries that some Nazis who committed suicide around the time of the end of the war wrote in their goodbye letters that they can't bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race, and that this is why they willingly departed from life.

It's not clear that the Nazis who committed suicide did so out of self-loathing or some such.

The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.

Which is a clear case of the rule of the turf: the owner of the turf has the say as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

Couldn't find any proof of that. At all. — frank

Because the commies destroyed it, obviously, duh.

It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.? — Jack Cummins

But why would one have to?

I think the real problem with hatred and prejudice is that one hasn't come to the final conclusion that they are in fact _not_ evolutionarily advantageous.
Don't you ever wonder whether the people who are full of hatred and prejudice might in fact be better off in life after all?
What valuable things are they missing out on because of their hatred and prejudice? I can't think of any.

People who are full of hatred and prejudice can make life hard for some others, indeed. But beyond that, they don't seem to be missing out on anything. Hatred and prejudice aren't the sort of stumbling blocks and negative things as some people paint them to be.

You think you're having a conversation, — Kenosha Kid

They never saw it as a conversation, a dialogue to begin with.