Yesterday I took the #2 bus up Sunset to the Arclight theater in Hollywood to see the documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief*. There are already numerous articles on the movie all over the Interwebs. The most succinct one I’ve found is on the Los Angeles Magazine website. Salon.com also has a very good interview with author Lawrence Wright, whose book inspired the film.
There wasn’t much in the film that I’d never heard before about Scientology. I knew they had boatloads of money. If you live in Los Angeles you’re constantly confronted with large, prominent reminders of just how much property the church of Scientology owns. In fact, the Arclight theater is just a few blocks away from the gigantic Scientology center that was once the Cedars of Lebanon hospital seen in the Three Stooges’ Oscar nominated film Men in Black.
Cedars of Lebanon in the days when the Three Stooges were there.
I knew John Travolta and Tom Cruise were members and that the church allegedly used information gathered in their “auditing” sessions as a way of blackmailing members who want to leave. What’s amazing is that the church is now apparently trying to prove this allegation is true by using information presumably gathered during these sessions to mount a smear campaign against the ex-Scientologists who appear in the film.
I also knew their theology was based on a really bad sci-fi story concocted by founder L. Ron Hubbard, who started his career as a pulp science fiction writer. I saw it all on that one South Park episode. The movie gives you a few more details about the story of Xenu the Galactic Overlord that the South Park episode omits.
Which is basically what I got out of the film; stories I’d heard before only this time with a lot more detail.
Since I’m working on starting my own cult here in Los Angeles, I was watching the film with an eye on what to do and what not to do. Actually, I hope my proposed center doesn’t turn into a cult and I don’t think it will as long as I’m around. But you never know where things will go.
Lots of people these days like to point out that the wacky theology of places like the Church of Scientology or the Mormons is not that much crazier than stuff you can find in the Bible, the Torah, and similar writings revered by other mainstream religions including Buddhism. This is a good point, I think.
It seems to me that in this life you often have to choose your delusions. You need to decide which set of crazy ideas works best for you. To me, it makes the most sense to believe in things that are rational and provable. But then you have to wonder if you are really capable of judging.
For example, I believe in science. I’m typing these words on a very sophisticated piece of equipment that exists because lots of people in the past experimented with things in the physical world to see how they actually worked. They developed theories and tested them to see if they fit the facts. Theories that didn’t fit the facts were discarded. Even the ones that did fit the facts were only accepted provisionally until such time as flaws were discovered, at which point those theories were either discarded or modified.
But there are limits to how far we can trust this stuff. Scientology is supposedly intended to bridge the gap between science and theology. The organization has developed a whole slew of machinery that is supposed to prove that their theories are correct. And many claim that these machines do exactly what they say they do. Those e-meters look pretty hokey to me. But I am unqualified to test those machines, so I can’t really say for certain.
In any case, I choose not to follow Scientology because their particular set of delusions do not appeal to me. Their vision of the ideal person looks to me like a big Type-A douchebag with lots of money and a thirst for control. That’s not who I aspire to be. But I can see that if you do aspire to be that kind of person, Scientology can probably help you achieve that.
But then I ask myself, is Zen any less delusional? I certainly think it is. Rather than believing in Xenu the Galactic Overlord, John Smith and his disappearing tablets, Jesus Christ rising from the dead, or even the various marks that supposedly proved Buddha was, if not precisely divine, at least a superior human being, Zen Buddhists don’t have any standard set of required beliefs.
Yet I had a certain degree of faith that my teachers were not lying to me. I felt something from them. Some kind of inner peace that had come as the result of their sitting practice. Just like someone who comes to Scientology because they want to be as rich and powerful as Tom Cruise, I started doing zazen because I wanted to feel the kind of inner peace my teachers seemed to possess.
After more than thirty years of working with this practice, I haven’t had any reason to doubt its effectiveness. Though I have had plenty of reasons to doubt my own understanding of it. I’m not really sure why it works. I know that zazen practice alone can’t keep a person from being an asshole, that it doesn’t cure cancer, that it can’t save your relationships or net you a six figure income. Even so, it has made every single aspect of my life better.
I’m sure John Travolta would tell me the same thing about Scientology. I’m not precisely sure why, though, but I know I wouldn’t believe that.
– – –
*If you have HBO and can record the movie when it plays there on March 29th and you want to send me that recording, please let me know.
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 3, 2015 Pomona, CA Open Door 2 Yoga 6 pm 163 W 2nd St, Pomona, California 91766
April 24-26, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY ZEN & YOGA RETREAT
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Registration is now open for our 3-day Zen & Yoga Retreat at Mt. Baldy Zen Center April 24-26, 2015. CLICK HERE for more info!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
I need your money way ore than Scientology does. So send your donation intended for them to me instead!
Oh yeah, Buddhism only promises the end of suffering. Nothing remarkable at all.
And the standard set of required beliefs are the four nobel truths (lies). You apparently forgot that somehow.
It offers essential meaning. That’s why it works. That’s all it needs to do.
The E-meter is simply Scientology’s early adoption of a Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter
GSR’s have been used as biofeedback devices since the 1970s. The lie detector is another kind of GSR device. It measures electrical conductance of the skin surface, which can represent changes between “normal” and “charged” emotional states. In Scientology’s case, it’s used to rat out various issues with humans, who are notorious liars and concealers.
BTW, I have both HBO and a DVR, and I plan to both watch and record this film when it premieres there at the end of the month, but I haven’t a clue as to how it can be coaxed out of the DVR into a usable and transportable file, so…sorry.
Translation of Brad’s Latest Post into Ufzian:
Scientology is a search for meaning that Brad don’t like.
Zen is a search for meaning Brad does like.
Everyone is still a dick.
Hope that helps…
Ridiculous. You, for instance, are obviously a cunt.
“Everyone is still a dick.”
Obviously I’ve mistranslated that one little Ufazian term. Subsitute cunt for dick and everything is good to go.
And go, and go…
Cheers.
Must I hate everyone, or is there a different way you can cope with me?
“And go, and go…”
Alan receives solace from the recursive diarrhea of these comments sections; therefore, he wants to see it perpetuate. The idea of a new dialectical possibility on these comments scares him because Brad’s voice that ripples into the self-similar voices of Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred gives him reassurance that his bubble has got it all figured out.
“Over 10-15 million Persians on the Iranian Plateau died from Mongol invasions.” – Subdural Hematoma, previous post
Why did the Mongols have so much hatred for cats?
Obviously SamuelHeliumBoy misspelled “Mongrel”. Then it all makes sense…
Cheers.
Racism, check. So you’re against interracial marriage because you called me a mongrel?
You do realize studies show that mixed dogs and plants tend to be healthier than pure-bred ones, correct?
But then again, you’re just a piece of shit that’s better off committing suicide.
Nonono… They hated rugs. They were barbarians.
The comments sections of this site coalesce into Brad’s one body that breathes in the fractal complexity of constantly quoting self-similar material in a contrived manner. The multidimensional Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred are inseparable from the motion of Brad’s breathing, being nothing more than an emanation of it, considering this multitudinous, reverberating voice cannot speak from the original, individual insight.
I’m tired of this Hive Mind that can’t penetrate “itself for what it is”, for it constantly reassures itself in a self-referential and recursive manner, “Once you have deep experience you’ll understand! No need to let go and speak from my own experience out of fear it won’t jibe well with the standard!” Furthermore, whatever doesn’t fit into “the standards of ‘deepness’ in this comments sections, that forms Brad’s one body that breathing in fractal complexity” is admonished and derogated as delusional. Sadly, it can’t understand its circular logic and incapability to become more original, making it more constrictive than boundless. This has to do with the double-standard inherent in the saying, “No-one and think not-thinking,” as people constantly quote more and more to justify it in a myriad of mechanical, parroting ways.
Just study the patterns and eventually you can computationally model the comments section with Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred quoting literature, trying to force an alignment of experiences with them, to substantiate what Brad has to say in some shape or form. Whatever can be computationally modeled definitely has some form of support. The perturbations of this system come in the form of outliers such as myself, who are cognizant of their hypocrisies and shallowness whereas the majority are not aware of the rigid, terse nature of it all… misconstruing it as freeing.
At the end what binds the breath is the constant comparison to a certain standard fabricated in people’s minds, hence why one aspect of Brad’s multitudinous voice called “Mumbles” likes to reference “being remembered” and “the squeaking of a lame squirrel caught in it’s own trap” as a way to filter out what doesn’t unify with the comments sections here that coalesce into the fractal complexity of Brad’s one breath. All one hive mind that limits itself ultimately.
For example, here is how I would go about creating an analogous computer program for the comments sections of Brad’s posts.
The babble that constitutes these comments sections are like a B6 polytope. It all weakly emerges from the One Voice of Brad. If I were to create a database of everything Brad has said, I could show how the properties of what Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred say are deducible in principle from the patterns of what Brad babbles about.
“The high-level phenomenon (i.e., Brad’s inseparable Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred form) is weakly emergent with respect to a low-level domain (i.e., Brad’s thoughts and opinions as a whole) when the high-level phenomenon arises from the low-level domain, and truths concerning that phenomenon are unexpected, but STILL DEDUCIBLE, given the principles governing the low-level domain.”
So there is no strong emergence here because in strong emergence high-level phenomenon are not deducible given the principles governing the low-level domain.
Ultimately, this is one multidimensional babble wherein Brad’s breath gives rise to self-similar voices that are nearly indistinguishable from it. People simply give quotes left and right to substantiate this and that because there is little to no original thought based off personal experiences. It iterates over and over again in an unexpected but still unoriginal manner. It’s like looking into the mirror that reflects “Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred” but finding nothing but Brad, Brad, Brad, and Brad!
Therefore, it can all be algorithmically modeled based off the recursion of Brad’s voice and the accompanying Dharmic literature that supplements it.
I can add a variable that unexpectedly perturbs the system, but when the system is perturbed, it goes back into its cyclical, self-referential mode of sucking Brad’s dick.
Don’t think you can fool me with your pretensions of deepness, you shallow bastards.
Can’t you just take your meds like a good boy.
I’m pretty sure one of your wet dreams have included Brad giving you some meds while you take a hot shower with him.
Don’t project your decadent imagination onto me.
That’s brilliant !!
Don’t fancy watching ParanoicHeliumVoid spiral through another recursive loop of the same-old-same-old.
I’ll let him have the last three hundred fifty thousand words.
Cheers.
I send you ended that with Brad’s signature, racist. You can find the signature of Brad in all of these posts given their self-similar and seamless change from Brad’s original post.
You called me a mongrel in a condescending way.
That’s what sheep do, basically.
Zafu, why is it important to you that you convince zen people that they are sheep?
You’ve spend some time on this, that’s for sure.
Why?
Well, it’s simple justlui, the people are sheeps.
If they weren’t, I could computationally model. However, I delineate a way to computationally model them in the post beginning with “For example, here is how I would go about creating an analogous computer program for the comments sections of Brad’s posts”.
While a lot of the comments are unexpected, all of them are deducible, hence making them sheep.
However, it is wrong to compare them to sheep, for a sheep is far more noble and alive than Brad’s multimodal configuration of ““Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred” .
I suppose you believe that realizing “profound insight into the nature of reality” would be a better use of time. But even our beloved Brad will tell you that such realization will fail to un-trollify, un-haterify, un-timewaisterify, un-etc.ify me, so wouldn’t that be a waist of time also?
Depends on how slender that waist is.
32
Zafu, all of comment sections form something called a “Chinese Room”:
“Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate.”
The fact is, the Chinese room lacks the capacity to reflect back on what it saying, comparing it to its own experience.
Hence, how I delineated the possibility of modeling all of these comments sections.
What Zen shows is that personal insight must come from a spontaneous, ORIGINAL expression. You don’t answer a koan by quoting this or that, what people do here.
Therefore, this is nothing but a recursive Chinese Room perpetuating into a myriad of forms, but always retaining the similar properties. It is nothing that cannot be modeled.
The only thing left to conclude is when the multimodal configuration of Brad, called “Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred”, posts here, it is not conscious.
As you can see, the system has been perturbed by an outlier, that is “me”, and therefore, Alan responds in a violent, abusive way by calling Persians “mongrels” in a condescending manner. He is alluding to the fact Persians lost their identities after mixing with Arabs or so forth, I feel, given he called us “mongrels”.
Once the system [of these retarded comments] is perturbed, the superficial underpinnings of it are revealed, then it responds with diatribe in order to force the system back into its initial mode of unoriginal contrived nonsense. No real new dialectical possibilities are considered as the constant quoting of this and that reiterates. No real comments originating from personal insight emerge.
“Trolls” are simply those who do not given into the one multitudinous voice of Brad that represents manifests itself as “Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred”. There are no discrete moments in this system, just an indivisible and stupid flow. Brad’s Voice is in truth, non-differentiable, the signature of it existing in the singular entity “Mumbles/Alan/minkfoot/Fred”.
What a remarkable multidimensional nonconscious organism to study!
Has social sciences been a part of your course of study?
And he thinks I’m a hater. At least I’m not a fucking racist bitch.
“As a circle, a Chinese Room, a self-similar property
an illusion, a recursion, a Turing Machine
a babble, an imitation, a flash of unoriginality
view all posts here like this.”
”• The Fuck these Comments Section Sutra
SH, congratulations on making it over to the new thread, as I expected you would. Now be a good boy and get it all out of your system (again). I notice you didn’t include me in the composite personality you are railing against. Is it my lack of Dogen quotes? What did I do wrong?
Note to Brad: if you do manage to start up your, er, cult, please be aware that people like this will start showing up at the door – be ready.
mb,
You have to try harder, mate. You have to finesse, massage, coax the serious crazy out of SH. Why do you think he lists me first? I won’t let all the cats out of the bag but one reason lately is because I mentioned an author that he wiki’d and found out he (the author, not me) once wrote about the sex industry in Thailand. Now I couldn’t care less about that, but by NOT responding to SH’s demands and queries concerning my opinions on this, he assumed that I was a Thai sex industry fan or something. You have to, in other words, understand what buttons to push when given the opportunity. Give him enough rope.
Simply put, SH is an attention whore.
He doesn’t care if the attention is positive or negative. He wants a response. I would posit this: if everyone would stop responding to his insane commentary, he will die from lack of attention. Simply ignore him. Let him rant all day long.
Now watch, …he is soooo predictable. He will jump right on this comment of mine and rant away. It’s his thing. His button. He can’t help himself. He has no self-restraint, no composure to draw upon.
I can virtually say anything at this point and he will respond angrily with false threats and repeated bullshit. I’ve found his key feature, his soft spot.
It’s his head.
mumbles,
You have to try harder, mate. You have to finesse, massage, coax the serious crazy out of SH. Why do you think he lists me first?
——————————————————————————-
(I’m secretly pleased that my handle didn’t make it into the composite strawman construct – I tried as hard as I wanted to…)
Funny, I’d never heard of Houellebecq before him being mentioned here. Brad’s blog is so educational!
——————————————————————————-
I would posit this: if everyone would stop responding to his insane commentary, he will die from lack of attention. Simply ignore him. Let him rant all day long.
——————————————————————————
Alas, none of us has proven superhuman enough to entirely resist the “Kick Me” sign he stuck on his virtual back.
Besides, I told him (in the last comment thread) that he has no choice but to remain inhabiting Brad’s-Blog-Bardo, as a hungry ghost, forever railing at the inequities of being trapped in that imaginary world.
And we, the good people, those who have Composure, will continue to peek in and monitor his progress from time to time, from this pointless point in space (and at other times, from Thailand).
Bravo mb! You may have made the list after all with your admission of being “secretly pleased.” Well, time will tell.
Right now he’s seething, but digging the attention all the same. He’s conflicted, perhaps even more than usual.
Fred has rightly said I come here strictly for entertainment. I’ve often said that myself.
OH SHIT, CALL THE THAI FEMBOYS.
OHHH THIS ATTENTION MAKES ME SO HARD!
Gosh, fuck you, Mumbles. I don’t give a shit whether or not I receive attention. There is no me to direct attention to anyways… It’s just oscillation and stability and my Persian mighty fist of Ahura Mazda.
Stick that fist up your ass again, you know you love it.
Say hi to your head while you’re up in there too.
Keep your fantasies to yourself, Mumbles.
Why? you don’t. You live yours all the time and call them “reality.”
Nice! Now you’re coming down to our level.
Interesting post, since I just read the book and am anxiously awaiting the documentary when it airs on HBO.
Recently, I’ve begun pushing myself to look more honestly at the way beliefs have informed my life and decision making from top to bottom.
As Brad says in his post, in some ways we must choose our delusions (or beliefs) that feel right for us. However, for myself, I’m also choosing to attempt to be more aware of how my beliefs trap my thinking and assumptions.
It’s one thing to use my beliefs as a kind of temporary and ever-changing blueprint. I need the blueprint to operate in life and to make decisions, based on how I view things.
But it’s another thing to hold onto a set of beliefs in the face of hard, factual evidence to the contrary.
To most of us, Scientology has a belief structure that does not hold up under scrutiny. Similarly with Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
I think that it’s also fair to say that many aspects of Buddhism do not hold up under scrutiny–or at least much of it has not been empirically proven yet.
Whether the nature of the self or the soul can be proven in the future is difficult to say. But it seems quite possible that at some point, science may be able to definitively make statements about the nature of the self in ways that will make Buddhism wrong.
Will people like Brad change their opinions when/if this evidence comes about? In other words, if science is able to show that we actually do possess a “self,” if somehow it shows that there is a soul, and that the notion of “no-self” is actually incorrect–would Brad drop his beliefs and traditions?
I think Brad would say no, because he says and believes his traditions have helped him.
I could be wrong, but I’d be interested in that response.
If Brad would not change his habits/traditions/beliefs even if strong opposing evidence presented itself, than he is exactly like other true believers in other religions.
I tend to agree with zafu. Despite the way other commenters are treating him, it appears to me that we are meaning making, believing machines that will cling to our set beliefs irregardless of evidence, if that evidence tends to make us unhappier than our delusions.
Thus, you get the kind of intellectual poverty and disingenuousness of Scientology, new age cults etc. etc.
http://blog.onprincipleblog.com/wp-content/yolo-meme-pregnant-i3.jpg
. “According to astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, wormholes may exist in quantum foam”
Science is as delusional as any religion.
A delusion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
So, science is contradicted by what? common sense?
That’s your definition of delusion. This being a fucking Zen blog and comments, the term delusion here refers to the content of your brain type delusion.
Now, in reference to Sammy Hemorrhoid the definition of delusion would be along the lines of biological mental disorder.
See the difference.
Uh, but you said that science is as delusional as any religion, and Zen Buddhism is a religion. They are both delusions compared to what?
Zafu, where exactly is the Earth?
In the Milky Way galaxy.
http://www.sweatlikeapig.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/science.jpg
Oh yeah! Zafu, why do you exist?
I don’t know.
gniz said:
“Will people like Brad change their opinions when/if this evidence comes about? In other words, if science is able to show that we actually do possess a “self,” if somehow it shows that there is a soul, and that the notion of “no-self” is actually incorrect—would Brad drop his beliefs and traditions?”
I can’t speak for Brad, but I sure would… In the words of Carl Sagan:
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/bd/bda42d4ee8383d4a546570c0b26eb3137118b2049022df46ceecb7628e4f070e.jpg
Hi Gniz
I tend to agree with zafu. Despite the way other commenters are treating him, it appears to me that we are meaning making, believing machines that will cling to our set beliefs irregardless of evidence, if that evidence tends to make us unhappier than our delusions.
And yet what you express there is significantly different in nuance, content and manner. If you come at people adopting the style of an inflexible troll, iterating a quite singularly reductive and – let’s be honest – pretty well-worn truism, whilst blinking past a good, few pointed critiques of his/her own assumptions… you know where I’m going in that score. I agree with a few of Samseric H’s core points too.
Personally I find Zafu’s hex gets me pecker ap, gavner.
And I can forgive Samseric almost anything for sweetmeats such as:
I hate Being John Malkovich
We can use meaning to construct, deconstruct and awe it out of the bawl park. Meaning is not meaning, That why we
Yeah, I agree the style of a “trollish” argumentation can ruffle feathers, but I have a fondness for that disposition. Since I’ve been a troll on many a BW thread in the past (and likely could be one again), I don’t hold the style against someone, so long as they make a “reasonable” attempt to engage on points.
The kind of troll that annoys me is that which spams or seemingly goes completely off topic and makes conversation and argumentation impossible. Being honest, I don’t see Zafu or SH as being of that variety, although perhaps there is a gray area there as well.
As for the meaning making machine, its true that this isn’t a new idea.
But it’s really interesting just how deep the layers go. Over and over again, layer after layer, I peel away and find more beliefs. It seems relatively unavoidable.
I see Brad’s point in that sense. Since we MUST have beliefs, and since we seem to naturally assign meaning, perhaps its just about finding that belief which most fits our natural tendencies and makes us happier, more well adjusted, etc.
However, I take some issue there. Beliefs may be unavoidable and useful, but I find that the tendency to rigidly hold beliefs when evidence is available that calls those beliefs into question, to be a very dangerous phenomena.
Because there is an aspect of Buddhism that seeks to go “beyond belief” or “beyond thought” (think the thought of nonthinking or however its said), you would have to imagine there would be less dogmatism amongst zen and soto zen practitioners, then other religions. But that doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case, from basic appearances.
And within myself, I’ve seen all the same dogmatism and the same unwillingness to bend and change with new information, whether its in my personal life, relationships, or in regards to science and philosophy.
The one thing that science has going for it, is that by its nature it attempts to change and become updated when new information and experimentation arises. Whereas most religions tend to be dead, studying old books and old thoughts and resistant to change and new ideas.
How much do morals change, really?
Hi Fred. Morals seem to change a lot, if you ask a republican who sees gay people marrying and kids smoking pot and fornication on the inter webs.
Perhaps morals change less if you look at things from a more basic moral framework.
I don’t hold the style against someone
Yes, but variously in practice, and for me particularly, modified by what appears to be the intention(s) – as discernible through the performance.
If the dominant MO is for repeated shots of narcissistic supply, then at best I’m gonna play (and most likely mark off another cryptomonoMEist off the list of hypervigilant exemplars).
“Uh, but you said that science is as delusional as any religion, and Zen Buddhism is a religion. They are both delusions compared to what?”
Your assumption is that Zen Buddhism is a religion. The flaw in all your arguments are the assumptions that you make in your statements. That’s where most of your strawman statements fail right off the bat.
The way you put your sentences together is delusional, and the contents of your thoughts is delusional, so what you are trying to reference is delusional times delusional.
Ie., what you have to say is a delusion on at least 3 levels, and any person attempting to respond to you would have to navigate through that. So what is the point?
Say what? Where are these good and pointy critiques?
For sure a posts back when I said you were a cunt, Zafu.
The ones you blinked past. Dave. Would you like some more meaning? Dave.
You’re looking (sic). Dave.
Hardly anyone responds to Brad’s posts in the comment section. That’s funny.
Many people admit they haven’t even read Brad’s books, let alone his posts 🙂
I’ve read most of his books and I always read his posts. But this place seems more of a forum atmosphere and rarely stays on any topic for long.
Brad who?
Your pimp, that’s who.
Once again, I agree with Zafu. Haven’t seen anyone even try to give a well-intentioned and rational critique of his/her points about the belief in, for instance, the four noble truths being the same as believing in the ten commandments or the buddha as an enlightened begin any different than Jesus being the son of god.
I’d be interested to see someone respond, with a real attempt, instead of one liners and ad hominem.
Haven’t seen anyone try, but I have seen people insult Zafu for wasting his/her time, which is something very different.
I tried in these couple posts here:
http://hardcorezen.info/an-honest-liar/3365/comment-page-1#comment-68508
You did speak to his points, but I think you side-stepped the question by trying to state that essentially, everyone was right and wrong at once, and “it’s all relative.”
I’m not sure that this is a strong argument. I think that making a false equivalence between beliefs can be dangerous.
Its important, in my opinion, to have room for rigorous intellectual discourse and to attempt to create opinions based on evidence and logic, while still acknowledging that as of now, all knowledge appears partial and cannot fully explain “the whole.”
Still, that’s no excuse to throw the baby of intellectual reasoning out with the bathwater of personal experience, belief, and delusion.
That we are all seemingly in the same boat of partial understanding appears to be real. But to then jump to the conclusion that there is no reality, or that thought is not real, or that science is just the same as any religion–that is a jump I’m not willing to make any more.
Then don’t make it. Nobody cares.
Well gniz, you said you don’t think anyone has tried, and I simply said that I had tried.
Now, perhaps my trying was not the strong argument you were looking for, but still, I tried.
As far as it all being relative, I think that’s a perfectly valid stance. That’s not based on book knowledge, bro, it’s just based on my experience of reality. It all fits when it does.
Gina did say a well-intentioned and rational critique. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind being more specific. In that comment section we seemed to both conclude that the “Zennies here do have religious beliefs.” This was contrary to the sheep herders declaration made in the blog post.
I don’t think anyone gives a fuck whether Jesus is the son of God or whatever. Maybe that interests you, and you can post some crap on that and see if you can get a response.
Fred:
http://memeshappen.com/media/created/r291zb.jpg
Hi Fred, the point wasn’t whether you care if Jesus is the son of God. Seemingly you don’t believe or find it important.
But the question was what the difference is between your belief in “enlightenment” or “no self” or whatever term you want to use to describe your essential view point, and that of someone who is convinced that jesus is the son of god…
Aaron, right?
I don’t care what the jesus is son of god person believes. I don’t care what anyone believes. I don’t care what you believe.
What you believe is your problem.
Ah, this must be the good and pointy critique.
Go to your browser address bar, type in the word “Buddhism,” and then hit the return key. In the long list that follows some of the first words you’ll read will be something like “Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.”
Just because the sheep herder said that Zen Buddhism is not a religion doesn’t make it so. Think for yourself!
Just because your browser says something doesn’t mean that it is. The person writing that could be as big a dumbfuck as you.
The point is the shear number of dumbfucks compared to the several geniuses like yourself.
gniz! Where you been for so long!!? Weren’t you making a killing writing Romance e-books? Did the bottom fall out of that or something?
Haha, thank for remembering M!
No, the ebook thing is still going strong. Hope all is well with you too!!
I’m disappointed that I’m also not a poo-poo head and a stinky brain. What does it take to get an anonymous poster to insult people more thoroughly?
Cheers.
Alright Alan you’re a big poo-poo head.
Et tu Frede?
Oh the pain, it hurts deep.
Now I truly understand the wisdom of SaintHemolysis when he advised me (in his kindness) that I was better off committing suicide.
I’d never thought about committing suicide until he mentioned it. I’ll have to ponder it for a while. It could potentially fix all my problems.
If I was dead I’d never be tempted to read any more posts on the Hardcore Zen site. But if I was dead I could never solve the hard problem of consciousness.
It’s a real dilemma.
The worst you risk is being reborn as a hyena, which is animal befitting of your character.
But if I was dead I could never solve the hard problem of consciousness.
———————————————————————————
You would then be required to deal with the soft problem of unconsciousness.
A much thornier issue, I assure you.
Rasist fuckers are beyond contempt.
Shut the fuck up you racist piece of shit.
Where’s Grand Canyon to send a modulatory inhibitory signal to the system? It’s getting out of control with too much exicitation (i.e., bullshit), so we obviously need his insignificant chirping comments (i.e., piss) to balance the system once more. He’s like a GABAergic inhibitory feedback signal that keeps the system from being too excited from circle-jerking quotes and throwing platitudes like, “Your assumption is that Zen Buddhism is a religion. The flaw in all your arguments are the assumptions that you make in your statements. That’s where most of your strawman statements fail right off the bat.” We need more piss to prevent the overflow of bullshit in here.
Take your meds son. The atypical antipsychotics.
Such original insight, Fred!
So amazing!
Always the same pattern of insults with you.
“Take meds herr derp. I’m smart.”
No, it’s not meds you need, Fred. It’s electroconvulsive therapy.
The lightning of inspiration!
“The sputterings of a rat vomiting in Plato’s Cave.” – Mumbles
Stop insulting rats, Mumbles.
I can tell you a rat is far nobler than most humans. I’ve had to decapitate them for lab, and it was very traumatizing.
That’s what pisses me off about you: your constant comparisons to a fabricated standard.
The fact you even view rats as lesser makes you a piece of shit.
The fact that you cut off their heads makes you a hypocritical liar
I’m not trying to make myself seem more innocent or “wise” than anyone else.
I recognize the undercurrents of my delusions, so why don’t you?
It’s the attitude of wanting to seem more wise or so that bothers me on this comment section. It’s like taking a shit and comparing whose fecal matter is better or whatever.
I don’t need you to tell me what I am. If quoting the same Zen literature (e.g., I remember you replying with Fuxi’s bridge TWICE) and so forth is your idea of actualizing enlightenment, then go for it, but I can see as clear as day that all you’re doing is fooling yourself in a kind of recursive way that you’ve got it.
You don’t know how to talk from your own experience because all of these quotes and stupid word games like, “The way you put your sentences together is delusional, and the contents of your thoughts is delusional, so what you are trying to reference is delusional times delusional.”
Why don’t you get a bit real and stop making everything out to be about cliques? Like a clique of innocence, a clique of wisdom, a clique of that, or etc. Why don’t you instead just talk spontaneously from your own experience? Because you need that anchor; you’re afraid to be alone; you’re afraid of solitude.
You speak right out of a book. What a pile of steaming hypocritical claptrap.
Such an astute response. You need that lightning of inspiration. Maybe transcranial direct stimulation is better than electroconvulsive therapy?
Also, I have met Brad Warner real life, and I asked for his damn advice.
He advised to cut off the heads of the rats because the research can be potentially used to help those with Huntington’s Disease. So yeah, you’re saint advised that..
Don’t hold anyone in high esteem, not even yourself.
Just acknowledge it: you’re being an idiot in thinking you’ve got it.
That’s because Huntington’s runs in his family, so he advised it on that basis for me to kill rats.
You morons don’t realize your teacher is primarily motivated by self-interest, just like everyone one.
I had a buddy with Huntington’s. He was kind of resigned to an early death.
Why don’t we talk about the moral dilemma about whether killing animals is worth saving your buddy? It’s called speciesm.
Can we bridge that gap without thinking, dumbass?
There’s no thinking involved, Sammy. Bridge the gap without thinking.
“Bridge the gap without thinking.”
translated into:
“Quote 100 Dogen quotes and poorly translated Zen poems for now on and you’re one of us… you’ve bridged that gap without thinking then. So yeah, I’m going to continue to post on Brad’s comment sections 24/7.”
Fred, why the hell are you always on here? Do you have a life?
What’s it to you? Bridge the gap without thinking.
Yeah, you can definitely do that with volition
Here’s how to do Shikantaza the Fred way:
“quote dogen a hundred times and argue against those that critique him on a comments section”
“sit in Zazen constantly trying to intentionally bridge the gap without thinking…”
Fred, were you a Christian before Zen? You should stick with that. This path is just not for you, no offense.
I agree. Fred, you should quite zen for at least one year. It’s actually done more damage than good for you. Try to see things for yourself, and don’t worry about scripture.
I love my cats, Samseric. I would cut both of their heads off, if it would save my wife’s life. I’ve ragged myself (and others) through far worse dilemmas. How do you view the ending of The Exorcist?
I did watch the Exorcist when I was younger, but I don’t remember it.
I wouldn’t cut off the heads of my cats ever.
The best horror movie I’ve seen in recent times is Cure directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Tetsuo the Iron Man was also good.
Tetsuo the Iron Man was good? Dude, no it wasn’t. It was proper fucked.
You’ll never EVER be able to convince me that you are not seriously disturbed now. Rat and cat slayer, or not, you sir, are twisted like Fred’s panties when you mention a koan.
justlui, I am a strange man, yes.
I go from extremely profound art like Emily Dickinson and Andrei Tarkovsky, and to extremely dark disturbing stuff like Cure directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa and Begotten, and to child-friendly stuff like Harvest Moon & Beatrix Potter, and Chi’s Sweet Home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNkJfvJqyM
I like art a lot and don’t limit myself in that regard. I watched Lars von Trier’s Antichrist without wincing at the end, btw.
I won’t lie that stuff like Harvest Moon makes me feel warmer and better inside though.
Point is, you can be aware of your biases and what makes you comfortable while not clinging to your comfort zone.
Also, the most disturbing movie is Rozz William’s Pig. I’m not into that kind of stuff. The anime film Midori is also pretty disgusting.
Now you’re probably how I know about this stuff?
It’s because my mind is not blocked off to anything. It doesn’t mean I like it, but I still increase my awareness to encompass what is.
wondering how*
I hear ya man, and I am sort of teasing anyway. I have seen Iron Man a few times actually, but it is fucked.
Now, if you didn’t wince when William Defoe got his little Fred smashed but that crazy bitch, then you really are not human.
by**
oh shit I just googled some clips from Pig. Yeah, I don’t need that tonight. . .
It’s not as bad as ShÅjo Tsubaki, Pig (directed by Rozz Williams), and Funny Games. I can’t even watch those films, though I did watch clips. It’s just too frightening.
I like my tripartite of classifying art: art that gets deep into mystical matters (e.g., Zen poetry such as Stonehouse and Han Shan, Andrei Tarkovsky, Emily Dickinson, etc.), art that makes you feel good (e.g., Beatrix Potter and comedy), and art that makes you aware of the bad (e.g., you know).
It is of course subjective, but it my way of breaking it up.
I can see why gniz and Andy would want to align themselves with this brilliant commentary once again from SamHel, who can deny it’s thoughtfulness and insight? What a sweetheart.
And you’re right, I was insulting a rat by comparing it with you.
As long as you don’t compare me to yourself, we’re fine, because of how much of a festering pile of shit you are.
I’m inside your head, kid, and I’m driving you crazy.
And I ain’t going anywhere.
Wait, what? I don’t even think about you, or what you represent, much.
If you’re trying to make yourself an emblem of libertine values, then that is strange. I have spent a lot of time reading some stuff on Marquis de Sade in the past because I had a German philosophy protege. I don’t like what Marquis de Sade stands for, and I do think about it a lot. I do know you sympathize with his values a lot, but I actually don’t really care about you, as a person.
THE ZEN COMMENTERS OF HARDCORE ZEN, INCLUDING BRAD, OFTEN ALL BE LIKE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJVpMod5JTA
It’s the Going Clear free for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_OvEGGdtYI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmmykiJSME
The only movie I liked from Satoshi Kon was Perfect Blue. I did not like Paprika or Paranoia Agent.
Really? I loved Paprika. Not so much Paranoia Agent, but Paprika was great. I loved that parade scene.
On of my fave anime series is Serial Experiments Lain. You like?
And yes, plus one for Perfect Blue.
Serial Experiments Lain was good / alright (7/10).
I watched it twice and read the plot analyses, so I comprehended it well. I did not like its postmodern, postcyberpunk narrative much. My favorite anime are Mushishi and Kemono no Souja.
Note: postcyberpunk is a bit different from cyberpunk. I actually like the latter but dislike the former.
Cool. I’ve not seen Mushishi yet. I will download it here in a few and check it after work. Cheers, rat slayer.
I’m not a rat slayer.
I am just teasing man!
I told you, mb. It was only a short matter of time before he exploded. So predictable. He can’t help himself. He’s my bitch but he can’t quite understand why. There’s a much bigger design to this than he can imagine. I am disappointed in myself for responding to him, as I said I wouldn’t, …not really, just kidding. It’s so much fun watching his tiny head spin.
And yes, in case you were in any doubt whatsoever, I am evil incarnate. I am only here to be entertained. Go for it motherfuckers!
Mumbles is an old fogey libertine. This video is about him. He’s the top executive bald man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlSHYL9peVc
Hahaha! I love those guys.
That’s cool that you’re admitting that you’re an fogey libertine.
Oh god I fucking hate Tim and Eric’s fucked off show.
Mumbles –
We all love predictability. Even if it comes in strange packages. Did you watch Justlui’s link of a 4-year old having a tantrum? I found it kind of amusing in the context of what’s going on here. But when I read the comments section below, it became depressing because it started a heated argument between commenters as to whether Mom was being sadistic and a bad parent for having filmed her daughter misbehaving and then posting it to YT. All of my tiny heads are spinning…
Sure, why not?
Maybe you should stop trying to force your fogey libertine lifestyle with the praxis of Zen practice?
What are you on about?
You know exactly well what I’m on about.
No I don’t. I don’t have a “libertine” or a “zen” lifestyle/practice. These are more of your projections. I’m a poor little Iranian boy with delusions of grandeur like you.
Why don’t you praise Marquis de Sade a bit more while you’re at it. Have you read Justine?
See, where is this coming from? You just want to fuck around. That’s fine with me but it takes time and I’m done w/ya for now.
From your past comments.
You probably share some controversial views you’re not willing to disclose or analyze on this comments section, that’s fine, but you’re lack of being upfront is annoying. I don’t want to scour the comments to find those clues again. You’re free to believe whatever you want, but discreetly acting as if your beliefs ought to be a standard to judge others is pathetic.
I don’t expect anyone to set anything I say up as a “standard” -that is your projection again, and if anyone here expects that of the rest of us, it’s you.
Anchoring yourself to what you extrapolate to be the majority’s general perception is problematic. The fallacy is called ” argumentum ad populum”. Zen is not about intersubjective “truths”…
Listen, these kind of conversations lead nowhere. They always become recursive because we point at each other assuming there to be a substantial “you” or “I”. In truth, it’s just oscillation and stability – it’s like the impermanent self-similar waves of the ever-shifting ocean. There’s no point in debating/arguing for the sake of proving oneself to others. A more relaxed conversation with tea is befitting, but the conversation should not proceed with constant quotes that appeal to a “higher authority on matters”. The conversation should mutually engaged in a manner where both people acknowledge the bareness of one’s personal experiences. All we’re doing is memory when we talk though, meaning it can all be deconstructed, but to quote left and right as a mean to defend one’s conjectures is a waste of time. At the end of the day, only you, yourself, stand alone with no support and can say whether you truly know or not. That’s what a path of gnosis, contemplation and wisdom’s unity, and so forth is about. I’m not here to lecture or proselytize someone, but I’m just exposing the hive mind of these comments sections.
Don’t assume I’m doing it in an act of superiority either.
Most of the commenters on this blog have some interest in Buddhism, of one sort or another. So here’s something from a book containing sayings of Gotama the Buddha.
“Some recluses and brahmins engage in wrangling argumentation, saying to one another: “You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline. I am the one who understands this doctrine and discipline.” – “How can you understand this doctrine and discipline?” – “You’re practising the wrong way. I’m practising the right way.” – “I’m being consistent. You’re inconsistent.” – “What should have been said first you said last, what should have been said last you said first.” – “What you took so long to think out has been confuted.” – “Your doctrine has been refuted. You’re defeated. Go, try to save your doctrine, or disentangle yourself now if you can” – the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrangling argumentation.'”
(from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html paragraph 18, slightly edited)
Though spoken by a long-dead Indian cult leader held in high esteem by deluded meaning-seekers, I think the words are true. It’s true that people often argue like that. And it’s true that a person wanting to avoid even a little bit of suffering is well-advised to do what the recluse Gotama did, and abstain from arguing like that. Rarely does arguing like that encourage tolerance. Rarely does it clarify or settle differences of opinion. In my experience, arguing like that merely serves to upset and inflame people: “The problem with arguing with idiots is that the idiots also think they’re arguing with idiots.”
I’m dismayed to see that a significant number of commenters here haven’t figured this out yet. (Now look what you made me do.)
He abstains because it doesn’t matter. Religion is about meaning, not truth.
Zafu said: “Religion is about meaning, not truth.”
whoa whoa whoa, why are you changing your game all of a sudden?
Changing my game? how so?
Internet sarcasm, meet Zafu. Zafu, meet Internet sarcasm.
There’s that blinking again. Right over the bit where anon108 related gotamas words to his own experience. Your proposition that he abstains because it doesn’t matter can also be true, based off experience.
There’s that lying again.
Nice to see you, Anon.
It’s true that upon jumping into the fray, you become a part of it–and thus, cannot hold yourself above it.
So what’s the reason for jumping in?
Could be anything…
I’ve abstained for months but here I am again.
I’ve been reading Going Clear and thinking about just what Brad posted, and wanted to pressure test my ideas through discussion.
Argumentation can be useless and can create lots of anger and division. But if we continue to look closely at why and how, we can learn just as much as by being silent and watching as an observer.
Going back and forth and round and round is useless but also useful, if you want to make use of it and not just hurt and torture those you’re speaking with.
My interest is in discussing belief, the reasons for it, and the differences between beliefs that are open to change and those that remain closed.
Most Buddhists will at least tolerate the discussion. I wonder the reception on a Christian blog…might be a whole lot less welcoming.
That being said, the discussion here does not often get off the ground either. Scoring points is more interesting than digging deep. Why do we believe what we believe? What would it take for us to change?
I can see why gniz and Andy would want to align themselves with this brilliant commentary once again from SamHel …
That’s gone over my head, Mumbles. What commentary and where have we/I aligned with it?
You’re either with us or against Andy. Do you choose the dark side (me) or the light side (Brad’s posse led by Jedi Mumbles).
Why do you align yourself with? It’s all about alignment when it comes to Zen, creating further separation between self and other and all the myriad of things.
Who* typo
I’m not aligned with anyone. But I don’t often subscribe to kicking the perceived trolls just because they say inconvenient things to the in group.
I like what Zafu says, and also SH seems quite sincere at times…
I was really, really angry a few years back and freaked out now and again on Brad’s blog. Working out anger can be good, if done with the right intentions and trying to minimize damage.
I was referring to your comments following gniz’s up higher, Andy (just your quotes follow:),
“I agree with a few of Samseric H’s core points too.
Personally I find Zafu’s hex gets me pecker ap, gavner.
And I can forgive Samseric almost anything…”
There, about head level for you?
But seriously, I don’t care, it’s boring me now. Maybe you’re into anime, too? (Yawn)
Anime is awesome.
So are the Cramps. Big deal.
“So are the Cramps”. I agree!
“Big deal”. Don’t be a cunt, Mumbles.
I’m not really into anime. I’m not an otaku. I just like a few here and there. I don’t like shit like Lucky Star or whatever.
If you want to talk about art-house films, I recently watched Urga (Close to Eden). It was a very good arthouse film. I also watched Cave of the Yellow Dog and The Weeping Camel too.
Who do you like more out of these five options? Andrei Tarkovsky, Robert Berrson, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, or Terrence Malick. Those are my top 5 directors.
“I’m not an otaku. I just like a few here and there. I don’t like shit like Lucky Star or whatever.”
Dude, only people who are really into Anime say things like that. Fact.
http://myanimelist.net/profile/ExistentialUFO
Hikaru no Go was a good anime. It got me into the game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_4ggOzYP4
http
://w
ww.youtu
be.com/watc
h?v=pTHcR1
ADoNM
Also, on an irrelevant note: I wish Doraemon would have gotten a better translation. The American dub ruined it by changing stuff like a first aid kit to a pizza and so forth. Good fansubs are hard to find for most of the movies, older and newer series, and so forth even though I use bakabt. I love Doraemon.
Good stuff, man.
The point I was trying to make there Mumbles (with the ‘core’ thing) was that Gniz’s agreement with Zafu, which I thought gave Zafu a better press than it deserved, was comparable to me agreeing with some of the things Samseric has expressed, which if given the same sort of press, I would also find too generous.
As getting my pecker up with Zafu’s hex was me saying I find his/her contributions stimulating, I’m hardly aligning myself with a commentary by finding some of SH’s words often funny!
I’m sure we can all see a few things about each other we don’t like about ourselves.
If it helps I’m willing to agree with some of the things Samseric has expressed, and not find it generous?
OK, I’ve had my fun. I’m off to a new adventure in controversial libertine zen (and infinite cats other) exploits only the imaginative can conceive of.
Knock yourself out.
“But you never came in, so there is no leaving out” – Fred
“Just get the fuck out already.” – Me
Just one last thing, trollboy: you need this Platform (get it? yeah I know you do) but I don’t.
I’m not the one that posts here consistently, Mumbles. Sometimes I do for awhile, but then I quit. Like I’ve said, maybe you should quit pointing fingers? Only you, yourself, can know if you truly realize who you are. No one else can tell you, and there’s no Platform that can truly make us find ourselves… for the Absolute Platform is without anchor, without support, and is groundless. It is found in one’s own solitude and nowhere else.
“Any life, however long and complicated it may be, actually consists of a single moment – the moment when a man knows forever more who he is.” – Borges
“In Between Two Pink Willow Trees”
Reading Shiwu, I take a moment’s break
Trying not to read any particular amount,
just look around without intent,
and a cat from afar jumps on the chair to nuzzle
Understanding that this moment makes life and its struggles worth it
Even though the moment is gone.
the Mind that made it possible is not
For that moment was the Pristine Infinity of the Mind
I really like reading this blog, and I usually enjoy the thoughtful and humorous discussion of Brad’s posts. I don’t much care for the trolling and name-calling, although that can sometimes be entertaining. Lately though, I feel it has taken a sad turn. Maybe I’m just getting sentimental.
I’d like to get back to having some good fun. What do you say?
You should always drink in moderation.
Being a part of a few message boards and blog communities, it’s always interesting to see how the type of commenter who is perceived as a troll or jerk on one site might be labeled a really good, sincere commenter somewhere else.
A lot of it is based on the common norms and whether someone appears to be violating them or not.
And then the in-group who perceives and attack tends to rally to crush dissenting opinions.
Indeed…
gniz, that’s pretty much what I was trying to get at.
Yeah, SH, I get it.
Well, in the past I’ve had pretty intense outbursts on Brad’s blog. I have a long history here of criticizing him.
I think this is a good place to come and occasionally bounce off the walls…just not too long or too hard. 🙂
You’re just getting sentimental, sri_balance. It’s the internet and it’s supposed to be fucked.
You may need thicker skin.
I wonder what Brad thinks of all this? I wonder how many people care? This is hilarious. Poor Brad, he writes a blog and clearly values his own opinions, and it all gets manhandled like a 4chan flipper baby.
The point I was trying to make there Mumbles (with the ‘core’ thing) was that Gniz’s agreement with Zafu, which I thought gave Zafu a better press than it deserved, was comparable to me agreeing with some of the things Samseric has expressed, which if given the same sort of press, I would also find too generous.
As getting my pecker up with Zafu’s hex was me saying I find his/her contributions stimulating, I’m hardly aligning myself with a commentary by finding some of SH’s words often funny!
I’m sure we can all see a few things about each other we don’t like about ourselves.
Hi Andy,
I hear ya. My thing is, style aside, I happen to agree with what Zafu appears to be stating in the comments section. If someone bothered to attempt a sincere and honest rebuttal, it would be interesting to see if Zafu attempted to respond in kind.
In other words, it seems to me that I sense a large underpinning of reason behind Zafu’s one-liners. I believe that Zafu is not simply a troll, but someone who has the conviction of reason and study behind their opinions.
However, the style of argumentation from Zafu thus far has been primarily in the troll parlance, and we haven’t gotten past it.
Regardless whether we do or not, on the simple scale of agreement, I tend to fall more on the Zafu side of the equation than not. But it’s not a style thing, it’s a substance thing.
gniz’s above post was pretty much was what I was trying to get at. However, he said it with good clarity.
This is a path that involves deconstructing our psychological in and out-groups. It can be deeply conditioned into us as we act unconsciously on it.
I really don’t hold ill resent or grudges towards anyone even though I do say some scathing things sometimes. I just don’t like this whole unconscious in and out-group thing where the people quote Dogen and other Zen literature thinking they’ve got it, amongst their in-group, when it’s supposed to be about a deeper experience that we manifest in our own insight.
Playing with word games as a way to feign a tacit apprehension, like what Fred does, is no way to go.
I agree with everything you say, SH, until this.
“Playing with word games as a way to feign a tacit apprehension, like what Fred does, is no way to go.”
Here you have sort of gone and made an “us” and “them” again.
It’s kind of unavoidable, though, isn’t it? And maybe that’s okay. What’s more interesting, is my mind’s insistence on creating belief structures and then creating polarity, right and wrong, good and bad.
Still, I won’t simply throw the problem aside and decry duality or say that belief will be a non-issue once I get past my mind.
Thought is like a dog that can either attack and bite someone, or be someone’s very best friend. Thought is helpful, but the danger is in rigid belief structures, imo.
On the other hand, rigid belief structures may in fact be built in to the program. I think science has a better chance of answering these questions, long term, than Buddhism does.
You’re right gniz, that’s why I made it clear multiple times we’re all hypocrites here. The point is to recognize it and let it dissolve. There are no innocents in life. There is just suffering and its absence, but even then, that is provisional and temporary like all things.
Yup, we’re all hypocrites everywhere. So where does it leave me? I intend to still use my “beliefs” just like everyone else, with the caveat that I hope to be able to change my beliefs when something presents itself as more appropriate, true, or proven–even if I don’t like how it feels.
Of course, that’s just today’s belief du jour.
Have you read Dostoevsky’s Underground Man btw? I get the sense everyone is an Underground Man here… It’s kind of depressing but also interesting in its own right.
A Joshu is very rare. Almost a infinitesimal possibility.
Haven’t read Underground Man.
As far as Joshu, or Buddha, or Osho, or Dogen–
I tend to think all are overblown examples of hero worship. All the same hypocrites as us. The very same.
That does not mean meditation is useless.
It simply means, in my estimation, that the desire to explain and have answers is just as dangerous as a nuclear bomb in the wrong hands, and just as lovely as a beautiful painting in the right hands.
Lately, I’ve been moving more towards the direction of trying to uncover aesthetic truths in artwork. I find that direction is most beneficial to me.
“I believe that scientific knowledge has fractal properties; that no matter how much we learn; whatever is left, however small it may seem, is just as infinitely complex as the whole was to start with. That, I think, is the secret of the Universe.” – Isaac Asimov
I think the same is true for art which is reflection of lived experience. Good art has fractal properties, hence why it exists throughout the ages.
I think older Ch’an, with figures like Wang Wei and Shiwu + Han Shan, was also about expressing one’s insight through poetic expression. Such poetry seems inexhaustible to me, and points to something not inexpressible in normal words. Only another poetic or artistic response can do. Bassho and Ryokan are also good.
The thing about good poetry or art is it comes from a kind of stillness, especially evident during solitude in natural scenery. All philosophy is thus a failing approximation of good poetry, writing, or film when it comes to expressing these ineffable truths. It is aligned , of and the actuality of absolute reality… Especially at the ending of Zerkalo directed by Andrei Tarkosvky:
Here’s also something I wrote about Zerkalo directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Here’s something I wrote about the ending of Zerkalo:
“let’s say you’re lying on bed and your memory resurfaces and you dream of all your loved ones, your regrets, and etc. You also get many people and their roles confused (since retrieval of memory is not perfect). You start getting sad and feeling remorseful, beating yourself over many events that have happened in your life (“he said this! she said that!”, “why couldn’t you have…”), and etc. Your dreams start overtaking you, but at the end you simultaneously accept and nullify yourself when you let go of the bird in your hand, and it flies to the wide expansive field.”
There’s a kind of fluidity only possible through artistically expressing oneself personally, and through mere imitation of gurus or other methods. It must manifest through a spontaneous act of creativity, that is normally before though or such…
not expressible*
ignore typos please
and not through mere imitation of gurus or other methods*
dang typos. Needs an edit functio.
Hey SH,
Nice stuff about art, and I loved the Asimov quote regarding science.
Okay, I’m an author so I’m with you in regards to art. It expresses something fundamental to emotions and experience. It’s a huge part of my life.
But in regards to science, what I like is its relentless pursuit of facts and truth. It continues to make mistakes and be revised, but that is built into the very nature of the method. There will always be mistakes, always be incorrect theories.
But it self-corrects by allowing itself to be revised by new experimentation and new conclusions. If there is no end to the learning, there is no end. So what?
By contrast, religions tend to be relatively dead pieces of philosophy, rigid ideas set in stone and mulled over and over again by those who are waiting to be spoon fed what they want to hear. The religious literature does not grow, but is canonized as “the truth.” And yet, in my estimation, a living truth should continue to advance and change and make room for corrections.
Thus, religion is like an old fossil while science remains a vibrant, living and growing understanding that continues to evolve, while most ancient religions just crumble into irrelevance.
I prefer to admit that the learning must continue, the known truths are simply partial explanations, the unknown expanse is still enormous.
But! But! But!
We do not need to accept falsehoods and mythologies and wishful delusions simply because answers are not yet understood.
I observe that reality is that which persists even in the face of delusion, lies, untruth and lack of belief. In other words, saying “I don’t believe in gravity” will not stop me from plummeting if I step out a second story window. Thus, the reality is that gravity exists.
Does that explain everything? No.
We need everything explained or we will accept nothing, it seems.
But we can’t have everything.
Still, we can have what we have and then we must continue to improve and see how our current ideas are wrong, by continuous refinement.
Art is the emotion, the expression of the ineffable. For me, science and reason is the expression of the rigorous intellect, unwilling to allow the prison of false belief to overwhelm it.
Well, given your classifications, I would say Art and Religion should unify. I agree with that.
However, one should approach science with caution. There’s a lot of unfalsifiable conclusions people extrapolate from research that simply isn’t necessitated by it. For example, the materialist thesis that subjective experience is an entirely physical phenomenon is unfalsifiable. Can you really explain the subjective experience of art with physics (i.e., electrons, protons, quarks, muons and the like)? This relates to the mind-body problem, or “Hard Problem of Consciousness”. There are a lot of problems philosophy can handle which empirical science can’t yet: “Who am I?”, “Are properties accidental or essential?”, “How does mind relate to matter?”, “Do universals and particulars exist?”, “How can we justify using induction itself?”, “Is there an objective moral normativity?”, “Do numbers and ideas have an independent existence?”, “What distinguishes alive and dead matter?”, “What does it mean to know?”, etc.
It’s best for philosophy and empirical science to work synergistically together, I feel, but it’s not to the point where it can tell us what our deeper experiences point ‘to’.
“I am sceptical of science’s presumption of objectivity and definitiveness. I have a difficult time seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations, to be enjoyed for a while and discarded as soon as better accounts become available”. – Antonio Damasio
However, after the downfall of logical positivism(i.e., eliminate metaphysics by reducing all meaningful sentences to either logical/mathematical truths or observation statements) by W.V. Quine’s good refutation (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html), it is doubtful whether empirical science, by itself, can even answer those unfalsifiable questions.
Good points, SH. However, you’re a little over my head in the philosophy dept. And the science dept too, I think.
If science will never solve the hard problem of consciousness, that’s okay. I don’t believe that philosophy can ever solve it either, then. If anything will do it in a way that is of use to the world, I feel science has the best chance of doing so.
I think science is kind of like what they say about democracy–it stinks, but its the best we’ve got.
To me, religion simply doesn’t cut it–religious stories are held up as truth on one hand and fiction on the other–they want to have it both ways. They’re truths to the in group and allegorical stories to those who question the viability of the claims.
Religion tries to draw conclusions about reality without backing anything up to be proven or disproven. Therefore the beliefs are unable to be changed to fit reality, and instead they stagnate and become mummified.
For instance, its literally impossible for the four noble truths to ever be updated, even if somehow one of the “truths” could be found to be false.
The religion and the institution itself refuses to update the canon, to change with reality, thus, I believe religion is not fit to answer these difficult questions about consciousness.
I’m pretty much in agreement with you there, Gniz. I don’t think our differences on the substance of Zafu’s posts aren’t so far apart.
I think the style vs. substance frame is perhaps a too simple one for what I was trying to express.
At 7.00 Zafu gave what was for me an example of what I glossed as ‘blinking’ in his/her response to anon108. A similar thing happened, if I recall correctly, in an interesting discussion with Minkfoot over the ‘desire for meaning’. Indeed Minkfoot’s points seemed to me to relate very much to the 4NTs. And yet Zafu responses seemed more invested with maintaining the slogan. I’m interested in the sort of issues that Zafu has touched upon to do with meaning and religion etc. But I didn’t think a direct dialogue, such as I’ve been having with you, would lead anywhere worth going. I’m sure that others have made similar judgements about my lopsided offerings and the stink it gives off.
My reading of the situation is that for similar reasons, others have withheld getting involved, for similar reasons, whilst others seem to have just done that thing and have reached a dead end.
As I suggested further up, we all make judgements as to the intentions of a poster, as we do in the flesh-o-dome. I’m not sure we can successfully unentangle intention, substance and style from the perceptions and projections through which we guide our entrances and exits.
But I must say, it is nice to have your voice back on here. I appreciate how you are open with your personal experiences and allow them to bring some practiced light onto proceedings – especially as I’ve been doing some particularly acute inner-stripping on and off for the last couple of years now.
typo: aren’t so far apart > [I don’t think our views] are so far apart
I imagine you can’t see how weak this is. I would ask about the good and pointy discussion with Minkfoot, but your recall seems unreliable.
Hi Zafu. As someone who tends to agree with the points you’ve raised here, I would ask for some further clarification.
Do you think there is any merit to a self-investigation of the four noble truths?
One thing that I still like about meditation and so forth, is the ability to attempt to use the scientific method on my own experience. So even if the four noble truths are actually incorrect, might it be possible to verify or disprove their existence through one’s own meditation practice in your opinion?
Or would you say that any individual’s investigation into their own inner experience is too fraught with subjectivity to be of any real use to themselves or others?
To go further:
Dukkha:all temporary things and states are unsatisfying;
The start of dukkha: yet we crave and cling to these things and states; thereby, we’re continuously reborn;
The end of dukkha: if we stop craving and clinging, we won’t be reborn;
How to end dukkha: by following the Noble Eightfold Path, namely behaving decently, not acting on impulses, and practicing mindfulness and meditation.
I would request that you discuss which, if any, pieces of the above you disagree with. Do you think that there is any empirical truth in any of the above?
I will say, for me, the crux comes in the pieces about how to end suffering–myself, I have not found it to be true. Although I might say that I have, to some small degree, lessened a bit of suffering through meditation. But I no longer hold belief in the complete cessation–I think it’s an unhealthy fantasy, to be honest.
“I imagine you can’t see how weak this is.”
Imagine away, Zafu. My words served my purposes and the context well enough for me, as I was merely adumbrating my reasons for not involving myself in a drawn-out dialogue with you. I doubt you’ll change your written view on that, or I my view. Simple.
Thanks Andy! Good to be back.
I understand your points. I like the stripping away of beliefs process. Very liberating. It’s like house cleaning–you do it and before you know it, the shit is all over the place again a few days later!!
An illustration of what I mean, re the 7.00 discussion.
Zafu in response to anon108:
“the recluse Gotama abstains from wrangling argumentation.”
He abstains because it doesn’t matter. Religion is about meaning, not truth.
My response:
There’s that blinking again. Right over the bit where anon108 related gotamas words to his own experience. Your proposition that he abstains because it doesn’t matter can also be true, based off experience.
Zafu’s:
There’s that lying again.
So, from my perspective, all’s fine and dandy. I support my point, whereas Zafu is only interested in mirroring ‘There’s that blinking again” with his slogan. I have no problem at all with that type of persistent strategy, but it’s also why I regard entering into a directly constructive-deconstructive dialogue with Zafu a waste of time, beyond the odd fun dalliance.
Yeah, I see your point. Zafu isn’t seeming all too interested in “polite” conversation.
But he did make his point well. His point: religion is not interested in truth, but rather, meaning–is astute. Because if religion were about “truth”, there would be built into it, the possibility to ascertain the truth of the foundational claims made in the religious literature.
However, in most religions I’m aware of, including Zen Buddhism, the religion is composed of rather static, codified documents that do not progress or change over time.
Thus, the truth of the documents is not what is of interest, but rather the meaning assigned to them.
In that way, I agree with Zafu.
When you accuse Zafu of blinking and he says, you lied, I think Zafu is saying that what you said is untrue, because, as he sees it, you haven’t addressed his claim at all.
And I would agree (assuming I’m reading him correctly).
All well made points Gniz. They are your points, though, not Zafu’s. Your extrapolations. And your take on ‘truth’ is based on a different usage to Anon108s.
So. In your response to me, you outlined a contrast which related to what you constructed from Zafu’s words and my own words. And you defined your terms.
Zafu might have made his/her point well, but that point was an insufficient response in context because, in order to have some traction, it needed to contain at least some acknowledgement that ‘truth’ as Anon108 used it differed from his/her own usage. Especially as Anon108’s own point hinged on that usage.
Now what I have deemed ‘insufficient’ in Zafu’s concise reply could’ve been a sufficient opening gambit from which two parties eventually defined their terms – as such discussions always necessitate at some point (for them not to break down or go circling around in unnecessary cross-talking and posturing). From my reading of Zafus contributions, I don’t think he/she is so interested in that sort of dialogue. All good.
For me, this isn’t a case of “polite conversation”. It’s a case of what I judge is worth my input and time, and also a case of what determines the mode my input takes – and I think I employ a good variety – polite or impolite – when I feel like getting entangled.
On the general theme of group dynamics and clubbiness etc., I think there are instances regarding Zafu where this has been true, but also many where folk have just come up against a similar phenomenon and made similar, individual assessments.
I’m in agreement with you, gniz. I like how you frame the relationship to art and life. I think if religion unified “Art is the emotion, the expression of the ineffable”, then it’s fine.
However, I do thin there is one thing you are overlooking, gniz. It is the phenomenology (i.e., the inner, private experience) of the religious experience itself. The weird thing about religion is it motivated to behave in ways out of the norm. For example, consider a monk like Shiwu (Stonehouse). He lived on the mountains and cultivated the land while writing poetry & meditating. Unlike his friends, he did not accept alms, choosing to instead sell produce, forage, and so forth. Granted, from his poetry, which Red Pine recently translated, called the Mountain poems of Stonehouse, one can tell he had some powerful experiences in that solitude within natural scenery. Here is a man who chooses to be celibate, forego the consumerist societal lifestyle, and simply live as a hermit “practicing the Dharma”.
It’s obvious his general way of perceiving and making sense of the world changed. The question is, how does that related to the substratum of reality itself? Perhaps, this is a foolish of question to even ask considering, from his vantage point, it is framed based off flawed assumptions.
The thing is we are compelled to believe in such and such with such experiences, especially if their frequency increases. At what point do give in and say, “This is what it is?” For example, Barbara Ehrenreich’s used to be a staunch atheist but after looking through her journal, she changed her views to accommodate a more nondualistic one. It kind of resembles the kensho of many Buddhists, prominent in the deconstructive effects of solitude:
“What if there is a world underneath what we perceive? We’re usually in a world of shared “reality.” You and I agree on what we see if we’re together, we have similar explanations for it, and so on. To leave that behind and just see things without any of those human attributions, well, that’s very, very strange, but I wanted to know more. … I couldn’t tell anybody. I had enough sense to think that this would be seen as crazy.
…
The only words I can put to it after all these years is … that the world flamed into life. Everything was alive. There was a feeling of an encounter with something living, not something God-like, not something loving, not something benevolent, but something beyond any of those kinds of categories, beyond any human categories. I don’t know how many minutes this lasted in its full intensity.”
The link is here:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/08/300520210/a-nonbeliever-tries-to-make-sense-of-the-visions-she-had-as-a-teen
Granted, it seems in such experiences the whole dichotomy between subjective and objective falls away, meaning we can’t even rationally dissect as would the scientific method.
unified with*
Hey, SH!
What a great post. Thanks for the link to Ehrenreich’s musings on her experiences.
Interesting that I’ve had a similar experience. I had a kind of falling back into myself, a seeing of everything as alive, but not necessarily “caring” or compassionate. If anything, I had a sense that the little ol’ me was not very significant at all.
The issue I have with my experience is that I left it feeling like I wasn’t very interested in continuing forward with what it showed me. I felt like, shit, I basically just saw that whatever I might be seems like its definitely finished when I die.
If something continues, its some kind of weird energy shit that is like, not me–so why do I give a fuck? lol.
And beyond that, the experience itself was simply an experience, upon which I threw my own interpretations afterwards. It’s the beliefs and interpretations which cause the problems. I don’t know what I experienced that day.
But I think many of us would like a nice, fluffy set of answers to these questions–myself included!
The issue with the doctrine of the four noble truths, as I see it, is this:
If you meditate for years and have not ceased suffering, the problem lies with you. You did not meditate hard enough, or you did not follow the 8 fold path well enough, or you did not understand the way well enough, etc.
However, in looking around, I see very few people who embody the attainment of the liberation expressed in the original documents. And those who supposedly have attained liberation, have oftentimes been found to be liars, con artists and molesters or predators (we are all aware, I assume, of whom I’m speaking).
Someone like Brad tries to circumvent the question by stating that we’ve simply misunderstood enlightenment and how it changes us, or doesn’t change us. Unfortunately, Brad himself can’t quite explain it.
Is that because, perhaps, just perhaps, he’s wrong? There’s no good evidence of the existence of enlightened beings because enlightenment itself does not exist in any way, shape or form?
I see much more evidence to counter the claims of Buddhism and the attainment of enlightenment (cessation of suffering) than I see any evidence of proof. And I have looked for it, and I have in the past, believed it possible.
“I see much more evidence to counter the claims of Buddhism and the attainment of enlightenment (cessation of suffering) than I see any evidence of proof.”
I think if you want hard answers, you won’t find it. However, Buddhism – from the Pali times to even Ch’an times – dealt with the relation of mind to the world in a very strange way. The fact is, Buddhists say mind is not cut off from the world and therein lies the potential for awakening.
The Orthodox Theravadans, not including subdivisions like Thai Forst Monastery, tend to be more orthodox in how they interpret the Pali canon (i.e., oldest writing in Buddhist) whereas the Mahayana tradition went through its own newer stages of development, breaking off from the Pali Canon) with figures like Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, and Vasabandhu. There is a lot of metaphysics there, and a lot of the cultural context is loss given the open dialogue and debates they’ve had. It also spread to places like China with the flourishing of the Sarvastidan school.
Older Nikaya Buddhism, for example, had lots of debates with Carvakans and other figures to secure its sense of identity too.
But anyways, the point I want to get at is how even in the Zen community people can’t agree on the nature of nonduality. Given how the Lankavatara Sutra, which was foundation to Zen’s development, tends to leans to Yogacaran interpretation and more Japanese Buddhists tend to lean to a more Prasangika/Madhyamakn interpretation, there is really no consensus:
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=879
The point I’m trying to make is Buddhism was a social process formed through open dialogue. Perhaps, it’s time that happens again? A less sectarian emphasis and a more individualistic one? Personally, I think the doctrine, itself, is multitudinous. There is no universal interpretation that binds it, and even teachers disagree amongst each other. The point is, we are alone… in some sense… We are really on our own to figure life out, and no one can lend a hand to the truth towards us.
I agree a combination of personal insight, art, and reason/science is needed for the full effect. This is technically what older Buddhists did too.
Honestly, the first Western Buddhist was Schopenhauer in my view. He was very up to date with Science and even a lot of Buddhist texts. He unified it all through his own personal experiences and rationality. An interdisciplinary approach is really needed to sort all of this out, but at the end it comes back to your experience…
This is kind of why I desire a setting of solitude in natural scenery with a knowledge in self-sustainable skills in order to “rediscover” or “reform” the teachings of Buddhism. I don’t really feel the suburban or urban setting is conducive for practice or attaining certainty in one’s experience… A greater frequency and depth, accompanying practice, is needed for certainty in, one’s personal realization(s), to occur.
I feel there is something to the Dharma, but you are correct in how taking it as a fact is more detrimental than useful. It’s just none of these schools has reached a consensus, and I don’t want to reach one prematurely either. I don’t want to quote teachers left and right to reassure myself “that I’ve got it”, so I need a new a kind of dynamic, a new setting, in order to deepen experience or so forth. I’ve had experiences resembling Barbara Ehrenreich’s too, but it’s not enough to truly say what it all means…
In that sense, I acknowledge my ignorance. I am really no one special…
Recently, I spoke with my father about this kind of experience and he also admitted to having it, a long time ago, and seemed sad not to have followed up on it in any way since.
My dad is by no means a buddhist, mostly a jew but not particularly religious.
I was surprised that he said he’d had this sort of experience, and he said he figured many or even most people have. I would tend to agree.
It has something to do with consciousness, but what? Some call it God, others Jesus, or Muhammad.
It is an experience, maybe like no other, maybe no different.
In the end, the experience goes. I feel that eventually all experience must go. And then what?
I am afraid, SH. I am terrified. But still, I face the abyss. I try to smile.
Best of luck in your endeavors.
Thanks SH,
I like your post regarding the dialog in the Buddhist community.
All religious groups have their dialogs (the Jews have the Talmud) and I am sure every branch of every faith has something along these lines.
However, the foundational texts are usually considered unimpeachable, no? Even if splinter groups disagree as to what constitutes the foundational cannon, somewhere, for each group is a foundational text or set of documents that each group bases its beliefs on.
But I like what you wrote here: “The fact is, Buddhists say mind is not cut off from the world and therein lies the potential for awakening.”
This is a bit like the observer effect in science. It’s difficult or impossible to break the observer from the observed because there is a connection.
Again, some answers simply might be impossible due to the nature of our circumstance. But I’d rather say, this is either impossible, unknowable, or perhaps just not knowable RIGHT NOW than to make up an answer simply to satisfy my own fears and anxieties.
In that sense, I likely have more in common with atheists than even agnostics at this moment.
I don’t consider myself an atheist, but probably fall more in line with agnostics. My sense is that my personality and memories die with my body and brain. However, I don’t necessarily think that “I” am separate from the world, nor would I say I must simply be matter.
The hard problem of consciousness continues…
I agree with you the “personality and memories die with my body and brain”. However, I would argue personality is sustained by declarative memory, considering its continuance depends on its constant process. Furthermore, it’s important to realize there are different types of memory: declarative, procedural, and working, as examples. What we fear the loss of is declarative memory which comprises episodic and semantic memory. Episodic is explicit facts about self-referenced events and semantic is implicit memory of concepts, meanings, and symbols, and they both constitute declarative memory.
Declarative, summed up in short, is memories of facts, sensory images, knowledge, and so forth, and it is separated from the processes of procedural memory (i.e., memory of how to perform certain actions such as locomotion or skill-based).
The question of whether declarative memory is entirely reducible to brain activity is good one. We know it definitely depends on brain activity for its existence, but the question of whether it is reducible (i.e., identical to the brain processes themselves) is up to debate. Procedural memory definitely is reducible, but I’m not sure if the remembrance of an idyllic image from childhood is identical to internal states of the brain, even though it may depend on them.
Regardless, we are fear the loss of our “contact”. One can lose declarative memory, the entire narrative history of one’s lives, especially with a brain stroke, but I’m not sure if they truly “dissolve into nothingness”. My remembrance of when I was child has mostly died, but the cause and effect relationships are still there and facades of it can still be accessed. Regardless, I do sympathize with your fear of the loss of declarative memory, and I think that’s what most people fear when thinking of death. I think the only solution is to not cling to our declarative memory as a sense of self-worth. It’s hard, but one way to deal with the existential crisis of death. Everyone knows, deep down, that they will lose their memory. It doesn’t matter if the image-like, episodic memory, itself, is destroyed (e.g., autoassociator theory of hippocampus and cortex is compelling in evidence) or if we just lose contact with it altogether (e.g., the hypothesis that image-like, episodic memory is localized in a holographic field is not complete nonsense). The point is, the outcome is the same: it is lost.
This is partly why theistic religions do not appeal to me. They subscribe a special quality to declarative memory as a way to avoid confronting existential crises… I see no evidence of declarative possessing special status, but I do see potential evidence showing the contrary in the future. However, it seems irrelevant even if we are shown declarative memory is not entirely localized in brain activity. For example, we know theta waves and place cells underlie spatial, episodic memory, and we can see how the activity reflect what landmark the rat consolidates or so. However, none of this points to the nature of what the experiential content of the memory is or how it relates to brain activity itself, unless you believe it to be identical (i.e., a reductionist), but that is an unfalsifiable question to begin with.
What I think is that it may be possible the absence of the state we experience when waking up is very similar to death…
For example, consider the first few seconds when we are waking up. We are just like a computer when its booting. In those seconds we don’t know what we are, who we are, or that there are any beings. We emerge. Then suddenly it all starts appearing, popping up: the self, things, future, past, our worries, our sadness, our joys, expectations, memories, etc. The Human Being Operating System fully loaded. Thomas Metzinger technically describes this as such in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k): When the organism wakes up in the morning, it has to achieve complex sensory motor integration. It meets this transient computational model, the conscious self model, and it just switches on. And this is the moment when you really wake up. As Roger Conant & Ross Ashby argued, “Every complex system that has had a regulator, that regulates its own behavior, will automatically by necessity turn this regulator into a model of the system as a whole. If you want to regulate different parts, you have to map them somewhere.”
However, that stateless state seems to be interspersed in our daily lives, especially when declarative memory is not recollected. Thought seems to depend on memory, but what if we tame thought so that explicit memory is retrieved only when necessary? That is, declarative memory is not a defining factor then.
As discussions have flown past, my last response Gniz, to yours at 9.34, is hung up there in the rafters. (10:43 pm).
[sod it, this is the copy n paste of my response]
All well made points Gniz. They are your points, though, not Zafu’s. Your extrapolations. And your take on ‘truth’ is based on a different usage to Anon108s.
So. In your response to me, you outlined a contrast which related to what you constructed from Zafu’s words and my own words. And you defined your terms.
Zafu might have made his/her point well, but that point was an insufficient* response in context because, in order to have some traction, it needed to contain at least some acknowledgement that ‘truth’ as Anon108 used it differed from his/her own usage. Especially as Anon108”²s own point hinged on that usage.
*Now what I have deemed ‘insufficient’ in Zafu’s concise reply could’ve been a sufficient opening gambit from which two parties eventually defined their terms — as such discussions always necessitate at some point (for them not to break down or go circling around in unnecessary cross-talking and posturing). From my reading of Zafus contributions, I don’t think he/she is so interested in that sort of dialogue. All good.
For me, this isn’t a case of “polite conversation”. It’s a case of what I judge is worth my input and time, and also a case of what determines the mode my input takes — and I think I employ a good variety — polite or impolite — when I feel like getting entangled.
On the general theme of group dynamics and clubbiness etc., I think there are instances regarding Zafu where this has been true, but also many where folk have just come up against a similar phenomenon and made similar, individual assessments.
gniz, I responded to your post above Andy’s. Just informing you because the comments section can be kind of hard to navigate. Not doing so in a condescending matter.
moreover, this is interesting to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwigmktix2Y
If you cannot form new memories, you get stuck in a loop like Mr. Wearing, and/or get stuck in the present. Every moment feels new. Sounds similar, huh?
“In a diary provided by his caretakers, Clive was encouraged to record his thoughts. Page after page is filled with entries similar to the following:
[CROSSED OUT] 8:31 AM: Now I am really, completely awake.[CROSSED OUT]
[CROSSED OUT]9:06 AM: Now I am perfectly, overwhelmingly awake.[CROSSED OUT]
9:34 AM: Now I am superlatively, actually awake.
Earlier entries are usually crossed out, since he forgets having made an entry within minutes and dismisses the writings—he does not know how the entries were made or by whom, although he does recognise his own writing.[4] Wishing to record “waking up for the first time”, he still wrote diary entries in 2007, more than two decades after he started them.”
Something similar afflicted Henry Molaison too.
For the opposite effect of too strong of declarative memory: look up cases of Solomon Shereshevsky and other people with too strong of a memory. It can lead to hallucinations, depression, hypersensitivity, and etc.
Anyways, one thing I agreed and learned from Soto Zen is the importance of tapering our attachment to memory. Everything else in it was bullshit. There wasn’t a single valid thing in it beyond that… The whole Zazen and full-lotus nonsense is just superstitious bullshit.
I think Henri Bergson was onto something about how perception and time ultimately link to our declarative memory.
http://www.boredpanda.com/alzheimers-disease-self-portrait-paintings-william-utermohlen/
As this painter’s Alzheimer’s Disease progressed, he could no longer remember his face. The drawings become more and more bleak until they lost their attributes. Click to read… It’s disturbing and interesting.
What is our face besides a fleeting memory? Try the mirror-face experiment. Just stare in the mirror for 10 min. straight without blinking in a lightly dimmed bathroom or something. Don’t use your declarative memory processes.
“Phenomenological descriptions were made by fifty naive individuals (age range21 ^ 29 years; mean 23 years; SD 2.1 years). At the end of a 10 min session of mirror gazing, the participant was asked to write what he or she saw in the mirror. Th descriptions differed greatly across individuals and included: (a) huge deformations of one’s own face (reported by 66% of the fifty participants); (b) a parent’s face with traits changed (18%), of whom 8% were still alive and 10% were deceased; (c) an unknown person (28%); (d) an archetypal face, such as that of an old woman, a child, or a portrait of an ancestor (28%); (e) an animal face such as that of a cat, pig, or lion (18%); (f ) fantastical and monstrous beings (48%).”
It makes you question if narrative life is nothing but declarative memory, then what is the demarcation between dream and reality…
I don’t know. It is frightening. I do think there is something there though.
So, I didn’t realise imaging, verifying and copying my hard drives would take the best part of 24hrs. What a ball-ache! I was just waiting for the kettle to boil and I kept seeing a progress bar.
So, it’s all whistle-quiet down at Narc Central, Passive Aggressive Alley, and Bitchtertainment Boulevard. Home of the Clint Eastwood Spirituals. Yee-haa.
Maybe it’s a Spring thing: this time last year CosmicBrainz had a good few of us pocking and prodding, giggling and gobbing. And I wrote and wrote pretty much the same kind of bullshit I do now. Well, perhaps pinch less stupid and slapdash.
I’m liking the lyrical self-cuddle thang I’ve got going on just now. O my lovely, loverly, lavly, self.