Careful about the connotative value of words. You say evil and we think we are in a dramatic moral conflict between God and Satan, and this is precisely what bad metaphysics does, the kind of thing that sends women to a fiery death and the spiritual sanitization of social rules. ... God is love. — Constance

You advise care in connotative phrasing and in the same breath demonstrate recklessness. "God is love" is rather emotive. Rules for thee but not for me, it seems.

How can you know God so well, btw, to know that "God is not a person who speaks, judges, lays down the law"? Do you believe that you are a God?

Getting back to your beliefs about sensations, I think evil is the correct term to use because you seem to be saying that sensations like pain have inherent moral qualities. I'm curious where you believe the moral quality exists. Is it somehow in the sensation itself or in what causes a sensation? For example, is the sensation of an unpleasant smell evil or is what causes the smell evil? A rotten apple will have an unpleasant smell and the cause of that smell could be determined to be bacteria. So does that mean bacteria is inherently bad or evil?

Someone extracts your tooth without analgesic: not a fantasy. In fact, far more ethically emphatic than any rule can possible be. — Constance

You seem to believe that sensations, like the sensation of pain, have a moral quality. Do believe that an unpleasant smell, for instance, is evil?

No, not literally. — Constance

So we are talking about fantasies?

There are an infinite number of facts. — Constance

This is not true. Our world is quite limited. I know it may seem like we know, or can know, everything about the world but trust me, we don't, and I highly doubt that we have the capacity to know everything.

With value, there is something else, once the facts are exhausted for their content. there is the "non natural" property of good and bad. — Constance

There's nothing unnatural about the experience or concepts of 'good' or 'bad'.

This finds its justification in the pain or joy itself--these serve as their own presupposition, as I have said. — Constance

Our conditioning does not require justification.

They are not things that defer to other things for their meaning; — Constance

Everything requires context to have meaning.

... the expressed principle issues from the world, not just some arbitrarily conceived bit of pragmatic systematizing of our affairs called jurisprudence. — Constance

Arbitrarily conceived laws? :lol: But you're right of course, they don't issue from jurisprudence.

Does that burn "say" with undeniable clarity, "don't do that"? — Constance

Of course it doesn't. People say such things. Burning sensations to not "say" things. Sensations are not independent minds that make recomendations or whatever.

If someone needed to cauterize a wound, for instance, they may think positively about a burning sensation and basically think "do that." The sensation itself doesn't care what you do.

Any example will do: place your hand in a fire, and ask what is this pain? It is not a construct of language; it is the world itself "speaking" so to speak. It says, don't do this, to yourself, anyone, just keep this out of existence. — Constance

It's not the world speaking, it's you speaking. You are saying "don't do this," not the world.

This is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence: take any concept about the world, any at all knowledge claim, and it can be demonstrated readily that there is no "center" no "final vocabulary" no "metanarrative" no stone tablets or anything at all that will intimate what is truly and really what the world IS. — Constance

It sounds like you've determined indeterminacy. Nicely done. :up:

The claim is not that a metavalue account of ethics is everything there is to ethical decision making. It is just that other questions are suspended here simply because they are not relevant to the inquiry.

Talk about God is why this metaethical line of inquiry is taken, and questioning about God is metaphysical inquiry. — Constance

You haven't talked about metanarratives yet, which is curious.

So, what is exemplary moral character about? It has to do with right choices, motivations and intentions, but intention to do what? Treat others as one should. Why is this a concern at all? Because all people are vulnerable to suffering. If a person cannot be hurt at all, then this is not a person for whom others can have a moral obligation. — Constance

The essence of morality is cooperation. You seem to be essentially claiming that it's avoidance of harm. Harm/care is only one dimension of morality. This is important because the aspects that you neglect are essential for religion to fulfill its purpose (it's not all about our ethics).

… value desperation … — Constance

To be as succinct as I can, desperation is reckless in nature, leading to rash and extreme behavior. Such behavior is quite often less than exemplary in good moral character.

Desperate people are easy to lead though, the more desperate the better.

Any thoughts so far? — Constance

I'm being patient. :smile:

To your mind, have you made an argument for why you think God (or religion, including Buddhism) is all about our ethics or are you ignoring my question?

... metaethical... — Constance

I do not think that word means what you think it means. "What-to-do questions" are questions of normative ethics and not metaethical. In any case, you've made an argument?

anthropomorphic, meaning what we call perceptually "out there" cannot be removed from "in here". — Constance

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

God is all about our ethics... — Constance

I strongly disagree. Can you make an argument for why you think God (or religion, including Buddhism) is all about our ethics?

The existence of God is controversial also, nevertheless belief in God is kind of a prerequisite in many religions. Maybe there are secular theist too though. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

Buddhists do not consider liberation a temporary mental state. That's pretty clear, isn't it? If a person is 'reborn' in any sense, then according to a Buddhist it is because of their karma, which means that they are not liberated.

That's one, perhaps simplistic, interpretation of the meaning of nirvana. Buddhists have also said that nirvana just is samsara. — Janus

Well, I've never heard of a Buddhist heaven, high up in the clouds or whatever, so nirvana must be right here, neck deep in the midst of all the shit. Where else would it be?

Must it be the same for all, in any case?

If we're talking about Buddhist Nirvana, it must only be what they claim it is. If we're not talking about Buddhist Nirvana, then we are completely free to confer whatever grand and nuanced meanings we wish to our uncanny experiences.

You believe that nirvana is merely an uncanny experience? Like seeing a ghost or something?
— praxis

Not purporting to answer for Constance but I'd say it's an altered state of consciousness, not a matter of seeing something uncanny (like a ghost) but seeing ordinary things uncannily. — Janus

A brain state, yes. A suppressed DMN, to be precise. I don't think that uncanny is a good descriptor though because it means something strange, particularly in an unsettling way. That's why I mentioned a ghost sighting. Seeing a ghost would be both strange and unsettling. Nirvana, on the other hand, means liberation from the cycle of life and death and perfect happiness. Quite unlike a ghost sighting.

Also, if Constance is talking about a transient experience then they are not talking about Buddhist nirvana and the liberation from karma and the cycle of life and death.

Nirvana - liberation and not 'unsettling'

Constance's uncanny experience - unsettling and of unknown duration

Affective apprehension: what is nirvana? And what is liberation/enlightenment? The epoche is a method, so what happens when thought encounters the world, and is reduced to the bare perceptual away from the apperceptual (sp?)? The self becomes free. It is not just an intellectual movement, but an experience. Enlightenment is the wonderful feeling of experiencing the world free of implicit "knowledge claims, keeping in mind that knowledge never was just a conceptual tag hung on a thing; it is a conditioned response to the world established since the time of infancy, and it is settled deep into experience as a default acceptance of things. Release from this is not just a nullity, though there is much that is nullified. It is an uncanny experience of extraordinary dimensions. — Constance

You believe that nirvana is merely an uncanny experience? Like seeing a ghost or something?

To put it quite plainly, the practical benefit of such a pursuit is simply the reduction of anxiety, existential and others sorts. The ‘cessation of suffering’ that the Buddha promises is a fat carrot that religious types find irresistible .

Your subjective experiences of satisfaction are essential, not simplistic. Again, you are free to confer whatever nuanced meaning you like to your experiences of satisfaction, or dissatisfaction. That’s up to you. Religions confer all sorts of grand and nuanced narratives to the world and our essential experiences.

But it shows none of the nuance of the brief review of the matter I provided above. Yours is a manichean pov, a reduction to a two sided simplicity of something that is not really simple. I took t that you didn't really read what I wrote and so, oh well. — Constance

At the start you wrote “the matter has to be approached phenomenologically” so that’s what I’m doing. You are entirely free to confer whatever meaning you like to the phenomenon of your subjective experiences of satisfaction. I’ve not made any judgment of it, simplified it, or polarized your meaning.

Oh. Well, thank you very much! — Constance

It’s not a complement. I merely point out that you subjectively experience the phenomena of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and this is evidence that life is not dissatisfaction but both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If your body is dehydrated you will suffer the dissatisfaction of thirst and should you be fortunate enough to find water and drink your thirst will be satisfied. This isn’t “materialist” science. It is phenomena that you subjectivity experience.

I certainly do [experience satisfaction]. — Constance

There you have it.

Is this called qietism in the West? — Gregory

No, meditation is... I don't think I need to explain.

The balance you speak is a rationalized compromise of something foundationally pure, a Buddhist would say. — Constance

It is rational certainly, though it is not a rationalization or compromise of any sort. Earlier, you were claiming this must be approached phenomenologically. Do you not personally experience the phenomenon of satisfaction?

The world is what makes suffering — Constance

Buddha blames life, claiming that it is all disatisfactory. That is, of course, a lie. There is both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Life requires both to achieve homeostasis (the middle way).

one has to ask, liberated from what. — Constance

I think the word one is looking for is *suffering*.

The "whole" — Benj96

As opposed to the not whole?

No, the matter has to be approached phenomenologically. — Constance

The matter, like any matter, can be approached from various angles, including scientific or “materialist.”

Can you explain why you believe it has to be approached phenomenologcally?

Even to simply point out theory’s, like Kohlberg's theory of moral development, or more contemporary theories like moral foundations theory, would be a more meaningful response to the question than, and I quote, “A fully developed morality is a set of principles of conduct and behavior. It develops as one ages.”

And no, this isn’t an interview, but I like to think that we’re at least marginally more interested in truth seeking than we are in playing stupid games.

Of course this all depends on how one constructs those ideas and no doubt there is a spectrum of possibilities. — Tom Storm

As far as I can tell, all religions each claim the correct constitution.

I like the Suzuki quote. Everything changes and therefore everything is empty. Without change nothing is possible.

I don't think that any religion is about self-overcoming. I recently read a quote in a book that went something like, "If you don't master yourself someone else will be your master." I think that's true, and that religion is all about someone else being your master.

I've always been partial to cherry-picking myself, metaphorically that is.

You're claiming that the core of a religion is nihilistic in nature? :chin:

Emptiness is the core of Buddhism.

Jeeez, ya blokes from daunundda are lazy:

Meditation has been associated with relatively reduced activity in the default mode network, a brain network implicated in self-related thinking and mind wandering. However, previous imaging studies have typically compared meditation to rest despite other studies reporting differences in brain activation patterns between meditators and controls at rest. Moreover, rest is associated with a range of brain activation patterns across individuals that has only recently begun to be better characterized. Therefore, this study compared meditation to another active cognitive task, both to replicate findings that meditation is associated with relatively reduced default mode network activity, and to extend these findings by testing whether default mode activity was reduced during meditation beyond the typical reductions observed during effortful tasks. In addition, prior studies have used small groups, whereas the current study tested these hypotheses in a larger group. Results indicate that meditation is associated with reduced activations in the default mode network relative to an active task in meditators compared to controls. Regions of the default mode showing a group by task interaction include the posterior cingulate/precuneus and anterior cingulate cortex. These findings replicate and extend prior work indicating that suppression of default mode processing may represent a central neural process in long-term meditation, and suggest that meditation leads to relatively reduced default mode processing beyond that observed during another active cognitive task.

Full article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529365/

What on earth is that? — Tom Storm

Good question. It's worth looking into, imo. :grin:

Absolutely, yes, although not in a way that is likely to be agreeable to a... fetishizer.

Various studies have been conducted on the suppression of the neural default mode network.

It's a religion like any other, and like other religions, I think it's built on some valuable insights. The concept and experience of 'emptiness', for instance, has value because it can lead to well-being (when not fetishized).

How can you treat the world functionally as real while doubting what it is? — Gregory

Supposedly by realizing the that world and everything above, below, and to each side of it is empty.

Questions answered twice. — NOS4A2

True, but answered so badly as to be completely meaningless. It appears as though you cannot answer the questions. That's fine of course, but it looks rather silly to pretend that you can answer meaningfully or reasonably.