Religion is for followers and I’ve never been a follower. I have a keen interest in spirituality though.

There's no essential difference between hoarding money (wealth) and hoarding any other resource.

Imagine a scenario where seven people are shipwrecked on a small island in the Pacific. On a small island, resources will be severely limited and it may be a struggle just to survive. The only food available might be coconuts, for example. Now imagine that one of the castaways, let's call him Thurston Howell III, is somehow able to hoard 75% of the coconuts.

This is a good situation for Thurston because he has the best chance of survival. Also, he can force the other castaways to do things (perhaps "wrong" things) for him in exchange for coconuts, a resource they can't do without.

In my view, there is nothing good about this situation. It would be mutually beneficial for everyone to work cooperatively and share resources fairly. It would lead to the best chance of survival and rescue for the most castaways. I believe that it would be the most meaningful way of life for the castaways while they were shipwrecked. Just imagine the kinds of goofy antics they could get into if they all worked together.

You might say that my view is idealistic, but isn't the view that wealth is a good thing also at least implicitly idealistic?

You wrote:

Many people want wealth without it being ideological. Let's face it, wealth is attractive. It is even attractive to people who have not had ideological indoctrination into capitalism or anything of the sort.

Wealth is basically hoarding, which you apparently believe is an inherently good thing, but it can used for wrong.

I don’t see how hoarding is inherently good. There must be some system of ideas or ideals behind this belief.

With money, what we see is a good thing that can be used for wrong. — Ilya B Shambat

Money is a medium of exchange. ‘Money’ as you use the term in this topic essentially means hoarding wealth or resources, and you apparently believe this is a “good thing.” There must be an implicit ideology behind your belief that this is a good thing.

That’s the DMN. People claim to have been able to condition themselves to consistently keep it down.

People who think their high status is untouchable are less likely to feel humiliated than people who care about their status and fear to lose it. So whether you've got a big ego or not, only impacts how likely you are to perceive loss of status, bigger ego mightn't see it as easily because they always see themselves in an unrealistically positive light. — Judaka

Trump might be a good example. He’s continually ruthlessly ridiculed and yet appears to remain ever confident. Sociopathic narcissism could make him a special case, however, if that’s an accurate diagnosis.

Issues may come up in what we might call a ‘spiritual state of mind’ or whatever, and they may need to be dealt with in order to move forward, probably best by a professional, but it is very much beside the point. The point is simply to experience the Eastern concept of “emptiness.”

Trying to contemplate one hand doing this creates a split in the imagination process....a sort of split between left and right...this leads to the mind dying a bit......the mind will try to heal any split that has happened, using any resources at its disposal...which might involve memories and feelings that might have been laying dormant in the person.........it all might lead the person to think something positive has happened, but actually they have died a little. — wax

That’s an odd description. You don’t think that neural tissue actually becomes necrotic, I trust. From what I understand the DMN (default mode network) becomes temporarily deactivated. This deactivation can be “presented” to the zen master in, I imagine, a variety of ways.

I need a consult. Yesterday I received an unexpected token rhyme from Terrapin Station. See:

https://genius.com/The-grateful-dead-terrapin-station-medley-lyrics

What's going on there?

Meaning essentially that we can value both our intuition and our reasoning and may have a choice in how we respond to circumstances, given the luxury of time anyway. We may be forced to rely on intuition when time is in short supply.

We can value abstract principles, however, which can override our intuitions.
— praxis

The only way to know if you value an abstract principle is via your intuition. — Terrapin Station

With enough conditioning an abstract principle can become intuitive, I'm sure, but initially they are learned or reasoned out and may have no personal value at all. People can adopt principles on faith.

There is a difference between my saying "I like Star Wars" and my saying "Star Wars is a good movie" — Moliere

I agree, and think the fundamental principle translates to moral issues, such as abortion. No one likes abortion. It doesn't 'feel' good and we have the intuitive sense is that it's bad. Nevertheless we can have good reasons for being pro-choice.

Values ARE just ways that people feel about things. — Terrapin Station

We can value abstract principles, however, which can override our intuitions.

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing.
— Ilya B Shambat

I can relate to this, but I think perhaps the problem is more communication than expression. I believe that anything is expressible, but not everything can be communicated in plain words.

I think when we attempt to express ‘spiritual truth’, we fail to recognise or clarify that were are really expressing an experience of that truth, and not stating the truth itself. While we understand this to be the case when we use artistic expression, including poetry, drama and literature, when we use words to express ‘truth’ outside of these parameters, people find it easier to take the words as the ‘truth’ itself - and this can cause problems in understanding what is meant. — Possibility

Well said.

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

So, what has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

Nihilism. Thanks for nothing, philosophy!

I recovered though.

Not at all. Anyway, I’m thinking that losing your sense of self may feel like death, in a way. They say the experience can be terrifying.

Buddhists often use phrases like ‘death on the cushion’, when referring to their meditation practice. I’ve endeavored to have such an experience but so far haven’t come close.

If you means there’s no way to rationalize it, isn’t this evidence for intuitionism?

In studies of "moral dumbfounding" people have strong moral reactions but fail to establish any kind of rational principle to explain their reaction.

I can't recall being dead before I was born, oddly.

As any halfway decent troll knows, the main targets to aim for are intelligence, morality, or social status. Publicly trashing any of these characteristics is sure to drop anyones serotonin level.

Yet, after more than two millennia after their deaths, we are still fighting this perversion of the concept of happiness. — Wallows

What exactly is the concept of happiness? and how has it been perverted?

On closer inspection, he may have simply been stating his belief that he could render himself emotionless, and in that case there's no contradiction. He explicitly mentions his belief but not his experience.

No, it's more like you having the bright idea of removing all of the wet floor signs when the floor has yet to dry, in the meeting place for an academic club open to anyone one at all, even those with no qualifications at all. And you're okay with some people falling over and hurting themselves, because the upper class is of the opinion that wet floor signs look tacky. And because more members of the upper class are likely to have been to university, you are of the opinion that it's best to pander to them, even if it means a greater risk of injury to the lower classes in particular, who have less likely been to university. For you, putting off snobby intellectuals is more of a concern than people injuring themselves. — S

This is a poor analogy because a hazardous wet floor is equally relevant to both the hillbilly and the ivy league academic. Indeed it may be more relevant to the achademic who, being so often lost in their deep thoughts, may be less likely to notice floor hazards. The hillbilly, on the other hand, is likely to be continually scanning the floor for food scraps and cigaret butts that might still have a buff or two left in them, and being so focused on the floor are much less likely to fall pray to its potential pitfalls. In fact, if the floor cleaner were sufficiently toxic they may lick it off the floor in the hopes of attaining a cheep high, inadvertently providing a public safety service.

we should work with the aim of being helpful and we should work towards minimising the occurrence of illogic — S

If prominently posting basic instruction gives the impression that this site is for beginners and this consequently discourages potential participants more skilled in logic it could have the effect of increasing the ratio of illogic.

... especially when the required helpful action is simple and easy, — S

It may be simple and easy to post some basics but would it be effective? In order to improve critical thinking you need to value critical thinking. It's not simple and easy to make people value logic, critical thinking, knowledge, truth, wisdom, etc.

When I said that this isn't the place for them, I meant that this isn't the best place for people who want an elitist club, rather than a club for all with a conscious effort to raise up those with lesser abilities. — S

I doubt anyone wants an elitist club. For one thing, the membership fees would likely be outrageous. I do think that many members, including myself, would like to see interesting topics that are discussed deeply and reasonably.

:heart:

My personal belief is that we can control and decided whether or not to feel. This of course renders me, in times of great grief, stress or any other powerful negative emotion, completely emotionless and blank. — Thesailor123

In times of great grief you are completely emotionless? :chin:

Is it possible to have a choice whether to feel or not?

No, there’s no choice. We’re always feeling some range of excitement/boredom and pleasure/discomfort. We may have some control in how we interpret this raw sense information as it arises in varying circumstances, though I imagine it would take time and effort to retrain ourselves.

It doesn’t follow that because there’s a significant portion of the forum membership that possess a particular quality that they should be catered to, and it also doesn’t follow that this isn’t the place for those lacking this [low level] quality. The assertion that it does implies that the forum is directed according to the apparent needs of members with shared characteristics that reach a significant size. That’s not the case, from what I’ve observed. For example, not long ago this topic (The Shoutbox) was deliberately taken off the list of topics displayed on the home page, an unpopular move, in essentially an effort to raise the quality of philosophical postings. Kinda like taking the ketchup off the dinner table and putting in the pantry because it's lowbrow and unhealthy.

I think it's uselessly simplistic to pin wars in history on religion. Indeed belief systems that bond and unify groups with common values and interests don't need to be based in religion. Look at the phenomena of president Trump, for example. He captured the loyalty of a minority of US citizens and won the election, because he utilized what you've described as a "weakness" and used it to his advantage. For the loyal Trump supporter, upholding one of Trumps lies is a show of solidarity with the group. The group matters more than the "Truth" because a unified group has power, or rather, has the momentum and will to take power in a democracy.

I think religions and systems of believes just take advantage of weaknesses in the human mind. — pbxman

Religions or belief systems tend to bind groups with common values and goals together so they can function more cooperatively. Within the group this is generally a strength and not a weakness.

But we are open to all, including the low levels, and the low levels need guidance. If you're a high level who lets something as trivial as "signs" to help low levels put you off, then you're not that much of a high level. — S

On the contrary, it would be an accurate intuition or assessment, assuming the sign was current and relevant. Prominently publishing ‘basics’ to a group indicates a need for basic instructions, and that indicates that a significant portion of the group has trouble with the basics. In the case of someone looking for high level, it’s entirely reasonable to be discouraged by such a sign.

Our awareness is not created by thought. It is present at a more fundamental level. We share it and the instinct to act on what our senses tell us with animals. Mind has developed on top of that along with language. You still confuse the self constructed by language and mind with existance at a more primal level. — Tim3003

It is unclear what you consider thought, thinking, or mind. Do you consider all mammals besides humans mindless, for instance?

I will point out that the minds of all mammals work in fundamentally the same way. Other mammals have invariant mental representations for things and even associate sounds or words with them.

So, you think a "small sign or impression" would be enough to signal to those with a competent grasp of the pitfalls and fallacies of thought that this is not a site for them? Honestly? — Janus

Small signs or impressions often work unconsciously and therefore may not employ a potential members critical thinking skills.

The point is that if you go somewhere looking for high level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you may get the impression that you've arrived at the wrong location. Conversely, if you're looking for low level whatever and at the entrance you see instructions on the basics, you might get the impression that you've arrived at the right location.

This presupposes that the proposed additional guidelines would be so prominent, so overbearing, as to render everything else on the site more or less invisible. — Janus

No, just a small sign or impression.

let's unpin the guidelines — S

:up:

I always follow the herd so I disagree too.

Prominently pinning the basics may give the impression that this forum is for people who need to be shown the basics and not for people who know the basics (and could offer better and more interesting content), signaling to them that they should go elsewhere.

As example, consider the phrase "my thoughts" or "I am thinking XYZ". All such phrases imply a division between what is sometimes called the observer and the observed.
— Jake

Correct. If there wasn't one, when you stopped thinking you'd cease to exist. — Tim3003

So critters without a sense of self don't exist? :razz:

Since we adopted an agrarian lifestyle human population has sky rocketed. — Bloginton Blakley

I started reading a book some time ago called 'Against the Grain' which makes the claim that people had to be forced into an agrarian lifestyle, and that they were much happier, healthier, had much more free time, and were generally better off as hunter-gatherers.

Meaningless??? People build entire religions around this stuff.

Fictional?? The experiences are real and the particular brain states have even been identified via FMRI.

Nothings? Neither and both nothing and not nothing, it's sometimes described. 'Nothing' is the opposite of something and a duality.

For that which does not pertain to or does not occur in human consciousness and is inherently outside of human consciousness cannot be described by human consciousness. — charles ferraro

Right, but transcendent experiences do occur in human consciousness. How could they not? Conceptualizing the transcendent also occurs in human consciousness.

A transcendent experience is simply a particular brain state, which is cognized, and perhaps later recognized.

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness.

American culture, as well as many other cultures, seems to favor materialistic pursuits over more meaningful goals. Developing a sustainable way of life and society would be a meaningful goal, for instance, however this pursuit isn't profit driven and may not lead to material wealth. On the other hand, it would certainly be grand, to travel the world without a care, as though one walked on thin air.

Acquiring money is a rather specific goal, Occidendum, and in this way is not a good indicator of general intelligence. Indeed it’s not even an intelligent goal.

Every man can decide for himself what the best of action is for happiness. He just needs to have logical reasons for it. — AppLeo

This is essentially how our minds work, we make decisions and then rationalize those decisions. Although we may have the ability to prime or condition ourselves towards particular choices/goals.