As chance would have it, shortly after my last post I received a book that I had preordered from Amazon. It's a new book fresh off the presses titled: Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. Meido Moore is a highly respected Zen teacher from Korinji Monastery in Madison, Wisconsin. @Wayfarer has visited this monastery in recent years, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, there's a part in the introduction that made me think of you.

It must be noted that there is today a common kind of Buddhist modernism in which the fruition of Zen is conceived to be a primarily psychological revolution. According to this view, the intent of Zen practice is attainment of a kind of acceptance of samsaric existence — a short-term (that is, for the duration of on’s life span) psychological resilience in the face of life’s inevitable suffering — rather than liberation from samsaric existence as classically understood in Buddhism; the dispelling of delusion and the final dissolving of the body-mind karmic obstructions (jikke) with which we have been entwined for endless lives and eons.
…
… a purely psychological realization is mostly conceptual and so inevitably shallow. It is a mirage, lacking sufficient power to cut the roots of ignorance in a lasting manner. More bluntly: it is not the awakening of Zen and is unworthy of comparison with the profound attainment for which the great Zen masters labored so exhaustively. — Meido Moore, in Hidden Zen

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.
— praxis

Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works — khaled

I can't say what happens when you try to understand how your mind works because I don't know what that means. What does it mean?

Brain science has come a long way in recent years, by the way. Buddhist conceptions of how the human mind works are rather antiquated.

It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life. — khaled

Both promises fixed salvation.

You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but by the same token, I could say the same thing about Western religions.

there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change. — khaled

Such as?

I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to. — khaled

Reading the stars is not mysticism unless you're doing it on peyote or something.

I noticed the new topic titled "Is Murder Really That Bad?" but didn't read because it doesn't interest me. A little surprised by the title, though I recall thinking that this is a philosophy forum where everything should be questioned so sure.

Yup, life can be dissatisfying.

Nevertheless, life is not disorder. It requires order and chaos.

That's how the left typically portrays the right, quite like the classical view of the bourgeoisie as a willing partner of the elite in suppressing the lower classes, especially the working class. The view has roots in traditional leftist thinking. — ssu

This is how the left portrays left-wing populism. I specifically mentioned the underclass (immigrants or minority populations).

Yet in societies people rarely displace others... — ssu

Really? I've been displaced from two jobs by offshoring myself.

I think the main reason is now days more about transfer payments and income distribution, then fears of crime etc. Few might fear immigrants taking their jobs or corporations using cheaper foreign labor. However I think it's better to view as a separate agenda as not only populists can have those opinions. — ssu

Well, I was talking about right-wing populism.

Populism seeks to divide people into two categories: "the elites" and "the common people" and that these are inherently against each other. A common definition would be: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." — ssu

Right-wing populism also positions the common people against the underclass or anyone who may threaten to displace their socioeconomic status, such as immigrants or minorities, and utilize ‘law & order’ to help suppress them.

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.
– praxis

The reasonable thing to do is judge reporting on its merits, not on where it comes from. — NOS4A2

The thrust of your comment is that most don't have access to anything besides 'crumbs'.

I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media. — NOS4A2

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.

The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, — NOS4A2

Thankfully unaware, I might add.

... and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear. — NOS4A2

I have a habit of looking at both left and right leaning news headlines and they cover pretty much the same material but with their own spins on it. For instance, if Trump says that virtually nobody is effected by the coronavirus, both sides will report on it, but the right-leaning media will try to put a positive spin on it. So it basically amounts to crumb bashing and anti crumb bashing. Same crumbs, different recipes that cater to their respective audiences' appetites. They're in the game to make money, you understand.

You can’t even be bothered to capitalize letters so the inconvenience of having to explain yourself beyond three letters must truly be an outrage.

But seriously, I think that the value in the OP of this topic is in its promotion of the idea that we need to make the effort to dig beneath the surface in order to find common ground in which to connect.

NOS is here for comic relief, not to tell the truth.

Justice can apply to individuals, when it applies to entire groups it is more suspect. — BitconnectCarlos

So when justice applies unfairly to one group we should try to do something about that. Earlier you wrote, "I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
so in that sense I obviously support 'racial justice' or 'social justice.'" There's no doubt that 'racial justice' can be politicized or used as a political tool to manipulate public opinion, but then practically anything can be politicized these days, even something as simple as wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of a deadly pandemic. So I suppose that we agree in a need for ever-vigilant suspicion and support for racial justice.

I think what's happening here is that you're regarding "racial justice" as a sub-category of justice and I'm regarding the term more in its modern social usage. Racial justice in its modern usage generally refers to redressing historical wrongs through perks or advantages today that apply to only one group, e.g. reparations and affirmative action. Easier grading for minorities could easily fall into this category.

Of course I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc. so in that sense I obviously support "racial justice" or "social justice." But the actual meanings of these terms today are quite different from just an extension of the conception of justice. — BitconnectCarlos

It sounds like you're more concerned with ideology than with extensions of the conception of justice or sub-categories of justice. If concerned with fair and equal justice, and a belief that that is a goal worth pursuing, it's easy to see how some approaches may be better than others, or that some approaches may even be corrupt. If an ideology doesn't value fair and equal justice then it may well consider the whole enterprise suspect.

If someone is willing to prioritize their own ethnic group before justice/fairness then I just find it impossible [to carry on fruitful discussions]. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think that you can win over a racist with reason. Their sense of fairness has to overcome the privileges of being part of the majority, if nothing else.

And I agree with you about how atheists can still have a sense of the sacred. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the environmentalism/conservation debates today are at its core clashing conception of the "sacred." — BitconnectCarlos

Does this mean that you're a science denier?

Profiting off knowing what the stock market will do prior to its tweet induced fluctuations?

Stoicism.

Because we are a social species endowed with the capacity of reason.

It's remarkable that you think this could be considered racial justice. Offhand, to me it sounds like the school is simply doctoring the numbers to look good or meet some standard. They're cheating (the minority kids most of all), in other words.
— praxis

I never committed myself to a position as to whether that policy would constitute racial justice. — BitconnectCarlos

That's what I found remarkable. But I didn't look into the case so I can't do anything but speculate.

I think the concept of racial justice is a suspect one in general... — BitconnectCarlos

Equal justice is generally suspect? How so?

... but if I were to accept it as a valid goal then blatant academic favoritism is not out of the question. — BitconnectCarlos

This sounds like a strawman, but I may be misinterpreting you.

In any case my broader point was more just about how difficult discussion can be when the fundamental values of two individuals can be very much at odds. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think that our fundamental values differ much, actually. We just suppress or promote the values that are in accord with whatever tribe we belong to. A dedicated atheist can have a sense of the sacred, for instance, it's just that they revere something different than the theist.

The fundamental, and rather glaring, flaw in Hirstoff’s account is that everyone values truth and therefore it can provide common ground. I’m sure that everyone values truth to some degree, but the degrees vary, and some value other things above truth, and consequently motivations will also vary.
— praxis

Yes, some people cannot be argued with, but I think the majority of people actually do care quite a bit about what's true and what's not. They have to (at least on some level) because they wouldn't even survive otherwise. In the end reality always wins and will punish everyone for their incorrect description of it. Let's focus on all those people that do care about truth instead of giving up beforehand, because some people don't. — Hirnstoff

I didn't say it was impossible to reach others with different values/views, I said your approach is fundamentally flawed in assuming that everyone values truth to the same degree.

For some reason I expected you to be a better listener and more open to the ideas of others.

For example there was an article in the WSJ today about a school in Chicago which was pushing teachers to grant minority students artificially higher grades in the name of decreasing the achievement gap. Maybe this is racial justice, who knows, but it's not justice in the traditional sense. — BitconnectCarlos

It's remarkable that you think this could be considered racial justice. Offhand, to me it sounds like the school is simply doctoring the numbers to look good or meet some standard. They're cheating (the minority kids most of all), in other words.

You've demonstrated that you like other people to type things you can object to. — Hippyhead

Fine, if that’s what you want to believe then be my guest.

Objecting to things that other people type makes me feel like a big dog and boosts my fragile lil ego.

Can we return to the topic now? If you have any objections thoughts about any of my objections please share, I'd love to shoot them down.

The fundamental, and rather glaring, flaw in Hirstoff’s account is that everyone values truth and therefore it can provide common ground. I’m sure that everyone values truth to some degree, but the degrees vary, and some value other things above truth, and consequently motivations will also vary.

I said nothing about being bored by those topics. — Hippyhead

Don’t be an ass, I clearly said my caring for those topics. I’ve demonstrated that caring in this topic. I don’t care if it bores you.

Well, forgive me for caring about stoicism, Buddhist meditation, CBT, the difference between religion and philosophy, and whatever else fucking bores you.

There must be some strategy behind stopping the stimulus talks until after the election, however lame it might be.

When I'm bantering with my brother or my close friends, we will call each other names, and I often reach for American ones like dingus, dweeb, doofus, douchebag/douche, and poindexter (it's not all Ds).

There's an amusing ironic quality to the insults when I use those words, because they're not natural words for us to use with each other. They sound almost corny--we Brits pick them up from old movies and TV, of course--so they undercut the offensiveness of the insults. To use one of those words is to make oneself ridiculous, thereby introducing the classic comedy of a self-righteously angry but ridiculous person. — jamalrob

As those terms are pretty much passé they could have pretty much the same effect here. For example, I might say something with an English accent like, “Them lot over there is a bunch of bloody dinguses, ay guv’na?”

Dune — Nils Loc

Just reread it in anticipation of the new film adaptation and there’s a word I noticed that Frank used a lot, which is presently. He uses it in narration and in the dialogue of characters. I remember when noticing it that it kind of broke the spell of being lost in the story. I like the word though, and thought to try using it in everyday language, but I haven’t so far. I vow to attempt it presently, however.

What is that supposed to mean?

Should I cheer whatever someone posts because they merely participated, like this were a kindergarten classroom? And if that’s what you want, why have you failed to praise my contributions? Have I not made a sincere effort to correct misrepresentations about things that I think are important?

You’ve got a lot of explaining to do, Mr. Hippyhead. Or maybe this is only a gotcha thing and nothing of any substance.

The 30 second military salute was embarrassing also. It’s respectful for a civilian to place their hand over their heart... oh, I see the problem.

The closest western philosophcal doctrine to buddhism that I can think of is stiocism. Stoicism actually tries to do the same thing so now that I think about it maybe IT was the first rather than psychoanalysis but phsychoanalysis is definitely closer in terms of "methodology". It tries to figure out what to do about being in such a terrible world in terms of what you should do with your mind. — khaled

Your claims are oddly contradictory. Stoicism utilizes psychotherapy similar to modern CBT. This is not the same as phsychoanalysis.

Reducing maladaptive negative thoughts, such as "being in such a terrible world" is exactly the sort of thing that Stocisim, Buddhist meditation, and CBT try to accomplish.

The main thing a Buddhist hopes to do by meditating is to understand how his/her own mind is constructed. — khaled

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.

But as he/she understands more about the mind they become able to perscribe people certain meditations that help alleviate their stress just like a personal trainer perscribes a workout schedule. It will work regardless of whether or not you understand why.

That's the same as psychoanalysts... — khaled

Buddhist teachers are not psychoanalysts. I don't think that this can be stressed enough. Of course, a Buddhist teacher may be a psychoanalyst if they've gone through the training and have a graduate degree in the mental health field, but that must be quite rare.

Anyone could outline the basics of CBT, on the other hand, and it's a practice that doesn't require a psychoanalyst.

Other than that the west seems to have largely tried to deal with this issue by changing the world itself. That is the key. The East tries to deal with this problem by configuring our minds so as to deal with it best. Just look at the second noble truth, to the East the problem is in the mind not the world. The West tries to deal with the problem by "fixing" the world (results vary from crusades to scientific revolution, handle with care).

I think that's part of the reason why the scientific revolution showing how insignificant we are, and the weakening of the belief in God caused such a massive void in the West which existentialists, absurdists and Co tried to fix. You hardly hear of existentialism in the East. That's because in The East there was no belief that the world needs to be fixed for us to be able to live in it, no need for mankind to be the centrepiece of the world for it to be worth it, it was always believed that the world is fine and we should just fix ourselves to deal with it. — khaled

This is just a weird and confused way of saying that religious life is spiritual and secular life is materialistic. There is no difference between East and West in this regard.

Notice how most Eastern religions don't have any sort of afterlife or "great quest" or purpose or destination baked in unlike most Western religions and myths. You can argue Nirvana is... — khaled

:lol: Yeah, you could do that.

... but a Buddhist will never tell you "You must seek Nirvana". Nirvana is a state of enlightenment but there is no pressure to get there unless one personally thinks it's worth it. Unlike heaven where the only altenative is eternal damnation. — khaled

I guess you've never heard of the 'hell realms' or being reborn as a scarabaeinae (dung beetle).

To sum, your heart appears to have been pierced by the seductive arrow of Eastern Mysticism, a rather common affliction in the West.

Thanks. Impressive woodworks!

As for his little ride and wave, I just do not possess the same anxiety towards his actions, and I actually liked what he did. The response sounds like grasping at straws to me. I could care less if they translate to votes. — NOS4A2

Do you care if his actions translate to infections?

That’s really weird because Trump taking a joyride around the hospital, regardless of the consequences to others, and manic tweeting seem totally in character.

Next in the beverage series, the 8 x 10" still-life Dragonwell.

Right, is even the green new deal radical?

It doesn’t seem necessary to argue that radical change is riskier than gradual change.

I named myself after an exploded Klingon moon because, well, to be honest, I’m a raging nerd.

I don't think I have a higher ratio of deleted posts than most others. — god must be atheist

At least you’re not a lonely trash poster then. :snicker:

I for one can separate my feelings from my rational decision-making. I enjoy hearing about Trump getting sick the way I enjoy a villain in fiction being hoisted by their own petard. It makes me smile and laugh. Those are my feelings and I didn’t choose them, though neither do I feel guilty for them.

But I don’t actually think he ought to suffer or die, because nobody ought to. If I were in a position to be caring for him medically I would do everything I could to help him recover. — Pfhorrest

I’m sure that I’d be tempted to accidentally trip over a power cord or three, but, I probably couldn’t do it. Damn it all!

The notion that genes are selfish is an analogy. Accordingly, take note that a self-interested person is not necessarily self-conserving, and vice versa. If you eat too many KitKats you will get fat and die young. — unenlightened

Dying young from KitKat gluttony expresses mindless self-conservatism (analogical selfishness) which is only distinguishable from self-interest in that the latter rationalizes after the fact with a personal narrative, it seems to me.

It would be a classic ending for Trump to die of covid, in ‘a trickster eventually gets caught in their own net’ kinda way.

Considering that moral values in the all too Randian USA are determined by pure economic factors, these elderly and the actual 'virtually nobodies' are simply worthless and cost intensive commodities; thus Covid-19 seems to be a solution to a very American problem. — Mayor of Simpleton

We could honor the fallen as hero’s but for the well known sentiment that those who die for their country economy are losers and suckers.