Point being, how true is it actually, that you’ve bailed out of Weatern culture?

I’d love the option to bail as well, now that I’m convinced we have the potential for so much better, but I’m completely saturated in my culture as it is. Funnily, it strikes me as somewhat ironically nihilistic to think that we are not saturated in our respective cultures.

You’re typing this from your hermit cave or monastery cot?

What do you think? I missed the bus, you see. — TimeLine

Maybe ask Santa for something like this so you'll be more on time.

Sure, that's a very famous aphorism. Heart Sutra is one of the quintessential sources of non-dualism in the Eastern tradition. But the philosophical background is very different to the Western cultural debate about 'mind and matter'. — Wayfarer

And therefore lacks the power to dissolve the disparity between mind and matter?

Trans-rational isn’t necessarily religious, in fact it may necessarily be non-religious.

Speaking of Eastern Nondualism, the concept ‘form is emptiness, emptiness is form’ from the Heart Sutra keeps coming to mind in this topic.

Having read some of their posts on the matter, my understanding is that a few of them consciously choose to express themselves in ways that may be offensive in some situations. I suppose the difference may be that they're at least relatively self-aware and not merely reactionary. That's an important difference and it seems to hold true, in my experience (which may not be sufficient evidence).

Insulting, demeaning, and/or belittling behavior ought not be allowed from anyone on this forum. — Buxtebuddha

I would agree if this were a forum for children. Adults should have the capacity to deal with this sort of thing.

I think Janus strikes at the heart of the matter.

How is this contrary to a materialist view, that everything we know, we know by way of the mind - including material or physical objects?
— praxis

mis-states the materialist view - actually gets it backwards. The materialist view (which I'm sure, incidentally, you don't hold) is something like: what we think we know of 'the mind' amounts to a 'folk psychology' which believes, fallaciously, that 'mind' is something real, when really it is simply an expression of the 'unconscious competence' (Dennett's term) of billions of neurons that have been shaped by evolution to perform in a certain way, creating the illusion of first-person consciousness. — Wayfarer

I listened to a short interview with Dennett that I found when searching for the term 'unconscious competence'. Discussing his new book, he seems to think that consciousness is not as mysterious as many people believe. I tend to agree.

I read Mind & Cosmos, by the way, and though most of it was wasted on me I appreciate the gist: that we haven't figured it all out yet and need to keep searching for answers.

Incidentally, Dennett thinks as I do that consciousness is not necessary, or unnecessary dangerous, for AI. Although working within the 'black box' an AI may eventually develop consciousness in order to accomplish a goal that its been tasked with, and the black box could turn into a pandora's box.

I'm curious to know the basis for saying that. If you think it's too tedious or whatever to walk me though it that's fine.

Do you think the mind can accomplish goals without somewhat faithfully representing objects? — Marchesk

It's an odd question because physical objects are represented in accordance with goals. The representations need to be faithful to the goals. Without goals or purposes there's no way to determine how faithfully objects are represented.

When I see a cliff and feel vertigo, is my mind representing accurately the danger to my body? Or is that just an illusion? — Marchesk

Sounds like you're describing a maladaptive response to stimuli.

materialists say that what we take to be 'the mind' is really just the activities of neural networks or whatever. — Wayfarer

So to a materialist view, that everything we know, we know by way of the mind (activities of neural networks) - including material or physical objects.

You're saying this is somehow inconsistent?

Here's a question. Why does the mind represent objects the way it does? — Marchesk

Most basically, so that it can accomplish goals.

A materialist would argue that a mind isn't required to know things? How does that even begin to make sense?

I don't believe that I need to support the question with an example, for the simple reason that we require a mind to know anything. Material or physical objects are represented in the mind. These representation are not the objects themselves. This doesn't address the nature of the objects.

But ‘idealists’ may not be saying that the mind is a kind of fundamental substance in the sense that materialists use the world. Their argument might not be about what the world is ‘made of’ at all, but be based on the argument that everything we know, we know by way of the mind - including material or physical objects. — Wayfarer

How is this contrary to a materialist view, that everything we know, we know by way of the mind - including material or physical objects?

a Voltaire angle — TimeLine

All this fuss over an omelet.

I think you mean that one needs to detach their emotional investments from what they experience. That would be a more objective outlook if one could attain such a thing. — Harry Hindu

I'm drawing a distinction between what I'll call the 'experience of emptiness' and general contemplative practices. Contemplative practice may include mindfulness, which is practicing an objective awareness of whatever is going on both internally (including emotions) and extenrally. Mindfully observing emotions doesn't lessen their intensity, if fact they may feel more intense, but they may pass more readily and are less likely to lead to maladaptive emotional responses.

An experience of emptiness is simply a particular brain state. It may be arrived at through other means than meditation. For example:

Views have a purpose and that is to provide knowledge of how things are at the moment. — Harry Hindu

"How things are" depends on our values, intents, and purposes, doesn't it? If our purpose is to acquire knowledge of how things are in the moment, we're doing that for a reason, and our minds are unconsciously screening a great deal of the information for relevancy.

If one already knows how things are in all places and at all times, then one wouldn't need a view at all, would they? — Harry Hindu

Rather, I suppose they would have all views. I can't imagine how that's possible.

Why do you think that there are people that need it and those that don't? What is the difference in those people? What is the difference in those being offended by being called names, and those that aren't? I think you will find the answer to both questions to be the same. — Harry Hindu

I think it's much more complex than what you may be suggesting here. Whatever it is that makes a person more or less prone to existential anxiety may have little to do with their self-confidence or emotional intellegence.

@Agustino

Do you believe that your posts are overly moderated?

Then with the power of now, we agree to disagree.

I didn’t say anything about teaching.

I find that discussing things in a forum like this one can help clarify ideas and concepts that may be challenging to grasp or articulate. You mentioned frustration in explaining your ideas. This is a sign that you don’t have a good grasp of them.

Are there cliques /warring factions of members? — Aurora

Just one, everyone against Agustino, or rather, Agustino against all.

It might help to flesh out your ideas if you interact with others. creativesoul is no intellectual slouch.

Views are subjective because they only contain a certain amount of information about the world as opposed to all of it (which would be an objective view, or a view from everywhere). — Harry Hindu

I believe views are also subjective because they’re predisposed to particular objectives. Thought and it’s concepts are goal oriented. A view from nowhere has no purpose.

To reiterate, the point of this experience is essentialy to relieve existential anxiety. Though I’ve only achieved a very shallow experience of it to date, I believe it works as promised. I imagine there are many people, perhaps you for instance, who are not in need of this relief.

Ok, good, so then, going back to the original point of my post that led to this discussion, it is precisely that experience of consciousness that is the "goal" (if you can call it that) of true religion/spirituality. — Aurora

This 'experience of consciousness', as you call, is typically referred to as mindfulness. It's been very fashionable in recent years. There's no religion built around it that I'm aware of. Mindfulness is an important practice in Buddhism but that's not its goal. The goal in Buddhism is basically to experience emptiness.

The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lie. — Aurora

The purpose of religion is to supply meaning. A system of meaning binds a community in common values and purpose. That is its essential purpose and anything else like 'true peace', salvation, or the experience of emptiness is entirely optional. Religion isn't needed to find peace, salvation, or emptiness. It may help in achieving those goals, or it may be harmful.

According to what you describe I experience it quite frequently, as in the your example of observing negative emotions.

This consciousnesses you speak of is mindless?

What is that place you are watching those negative emotions from ? Is it the mind ? Or is it something outside the mind/body ? — Aurora

It’s the mind.

To realize that you're a conscious being, given a temporary form to dwell in.

This may sound exceedingly simple or trivial or insignificant, but there is a vast depth to what can follow from this realization. — Aurora

I'd like to plumb the depths a bit. When you say a conscious being with a temporary form to dwell in, are you suggesting that the conscious being is independent of the temporary form and may not be temporary itself?

what kind of goal would you find less "odd"?

Happiness is a good goal.

That's an odd goal, quite frankly.

Well, I do see everything as interconnected. I mean our own bodies wouldn't exist if not for food and air - both of which exist "separate" from our bodies, but then I don't need meditation, or some fancy use of language, to be aware of, or understand that. It's just something that I know, and isn't temporary, but is integrated into my entire worldview. — Harry Hindu

Sure, fine, but there's a difference between conceptual understanding and experience. Meditation or other forms of manipulating awareness are designed to experience this lack of separation and transcend our own worldview or interest, and view the world from a vantage point that is, in Thomas Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular."

Real spirituality/religion has nothing to do with weekly trips to a building or the reading of books or donations or rituals or ceremonies .. in fact, all of those are nothing more than a charade that gets in the way of the ultimate goal. — Aurora

What's the ultimate goal?

Lesson number 9: I own you. — YourLeaderSapientia

A responsible owner will cover medical expenses. FYI, think I’m starting to feel a tooth ache.

What you seem to be calling transcending, I call deluding. Delusions are a means of alleviating stress associated with ideas that produce anxiety. They cover up reality with fancy ideas that make one feel good, but aren't objectively true. I really don't understand what it means to transcend our self, or our idea of self. It's just another form of religion, which itself is just another kind of delusion to make us feel better about our existence, but isn't necessarily true, or the way things really are. — Harry Hindu

The way things really are is individuated? In reality, my keyboard is really separate from the desk it sits on, and the desk separate from the floor, etc... That how reality really is?

What it seems like you're saying is that we need to think like lower animals which have no concept of their own death, or their future. How is thinking like lower animals transcendent? — Harry Hindu

Lower animals don't have these concepts to transcend. Obviously, we can't eliminate these concepts, but we may be able to loosen their grip on us, and in so doing relieve the anxiety they may produce.

The fact that we know we can die is knowledge that enables us to avoid death. It is the basis of all our medical knowledge in understanding how our bodies work and their relationship with the rest of the world. — Harry Hindu

Animals seem to avoid death well enough. In fact, they normally strike a good balance with their environment, whereas we tend over manipulate our environment, to the point of the extinction of countless species, and perhaps our own in the near future.

To be clear, I was talking about a temporary meditative state. This isn't a condition that can be maintained in day to day life, assuming that were even desirable. Being mindful is something that could be practiced in normal life.

It's about transcending the conceptual construct of self.
— praxis

What does that even mean - thinking that you are more than what you are - a delusion of grandeur? — Harry Hindu

Granted the language is a bit grandiose, but what it signifies is merely a subduing of the neural activity associated with the self-concept, or rather a particular brain state where a sense of self has diminished or is altogether absent.

It seems the negative side of developing a self-concept, and other concepts such as life, death, the future, etc., is that it tends to breed existential anxiety. Subduing the sense of self tends to relieve this anxiety, and may also facilitate other beneficial psychological and social developments.

Alternatively, human nature is fundamentally a social construct and so humanity is quite concerned with "taming the beast within". It wants to put a distance between its cultural self and its biological roots.

So philosophy - east or west - makes sense in this context. It is the next step in breeding a detachment from "the beast within". It makes us more social in being more rational and less emotionally driven. — apokrisis

If I'm not mistaken, human nature according to the Eastern social construct doesn't contain a "beast within." Rather, the true nature of sentient beings is that of emptiness, according to Eastern philosophy, and it is social constructs like the concept of self that obscure this nature.

Letting go of "yourself" and "the world" is only a cultural injunction to transcend whatever biology that society wishes didn't dominate your thinking so much. And once you have been trained to let go like that, you can start to fully participate in a calm, rational, linguistic culture where all actions become pro-socially reasonable.

So it is just another cultural game - and one actually designed to strengthen culture's hold on your thought patterns. — apokrisis

Generally speaking, religion is just another cultural game which binds groups in thought and purpose. Transcendence, which may or may not be achieved via a religious practice, isn't about transcending biology. It's about transcending the conceptual construct of self.

No, what I meant is experiencing a new place or thing and for no apparent reason getting a bad or generally anxious feeling about it. That sort of thing.