A minimalist view of transcendence.

[Moreno]

There is a difference between talking about the... and THE. This whole thread is dualism. Talking about transcendence isn't transcendence. That's the irony of language itself, and yet we all participate, don't we?

The only dualism I can see is if the transcendent is considered to be another kind of substance/essence. I don't think language and thing referred to constitutes a dualism, just two different things. IOW materialist recognize that words refer to things, but they consider all this material phenomena. A map of LA and LA are two different chunks of matter. And the materialist stays a monist.

That clarifies the subject for me as long as you are using materialism to be illustrative rather than ultimate. The immaterialist can stay monist too, theoretically.

yes, it was just an example. Other monists could stay monists. Certainly an idealist could.

The minimalist view would remain agnostic on that point. We don't know with certainty that what we call spirit is not a subtle physical phenomenon.

Or as I tend to argue it. Most scientists, but not all, refer to everything that is determined to exist as physical. So it really just means considered real by scientific consensus. anything found to be real will also be called physical, until this highly metaphysical word is finally dropped.

Hopefully we can remain naturalistic in the sense of looking for minimalist explanations that don't rely on the supernatural without sacrificing what is valuable about our experiences of transcendence.

[/quote]Not sure if you saw my post here....
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179442&p=2323314#p2323276
but I wrote in a sense around this issue.

[Bob]

Yes Freud saw the ego as "the reality principle". Of course, in philosophy "reality" is a loaded and questionable term. But the ego was seen as having a mediating and practical function with survival value.

Yes, although what constitutes reality isn't first of all a philosophical question, but a survival one. Philosophy is rather high on the needs list. But then again, it is a question of transcendence to get beyond mere survival and to realising the other potentials we have.

So one question for some kinds of alleged transcendence including meditation is: Is it merely a means of escape? Escaping the ego could be escaping reality. You know you have heard this accusation before in various forms. And it can not be answered definitively. Even if it is not that for you, it may be escape for someone else, even for one you may at the moment you believe that their transcendence is real. The monk may be hiding out in the monastery trying to escape reality not experience it.

Escape, if it is necessary, is never something trivial. It has become clear that modern man in his general inability to cope, often uses illness or disease to escape the situation he can't cope with. That is, the body reacts pathologically to a situation in order to escape and at least produces symptoms, if not the cause of serious illnesses. Meditation is the opposite, and generally helps us cope, assists our health and is essentially “time off.” It isn't so much an escape from ego as ignoring it for a while, but helps us focus on the way it is.

Whilst I obviously can't speak for others, as someone who meditates, I can observe the way people (and I) cope with reality in the survival sense and act accordingly. The aim is to stay in contact with reality, not escape it. Many, if not all, of the Christian Mystics were known for their empathy for the larger population and many were involved in healing, which shows that they confronted, rather than avoided, reality. Of course this doesn't cover every occasion, and there are bound to be people hiding in the cells, or at their Special Place Of Tranquility, shuddering at the thought of leaving their refuge. But are we to judge people who seek for transcendence by those who use it as an excuse?

Curiously, the people meditating I have met and who I feel an affinity towards are, like me, involved in elderly care, nursing and social-work, which may just be the way we are drawn together, but I notice that our main conversation is about overcoming the conditions to get to people needing help, and how meditation helps stay focused and not burnt-out. So I think that this helps overcome the problems you mentioned.

One thing I will say is that some Christians we know who will not meditate, despite invitations, are also not coping and tend to be more sporadic with their help. Without wanting to judge them, we have noticed that they continually seem to be excusing themselves ...

[Typist]

If we wish, we could examine an exaggerated case of the monk who spends his whole life meditating in the monastery.

Is the monk escaping from reality? Or has he devoted himself to the serious exploration of one aspect of human experience?

If a scientist spends his whole life in his lab, why do we not ask if he is escaping from reality?

[felix dakat]

If we wish, we could examine an exaggerated case of the monk who spends his whole life meditating in the monastery.

Is the monk escaping from reality? Or has he devoted himself to the serious exploration of one aspect of human experience?

If a scientist spends his whole life in his lab, why do we not ask if he is escaping from reality?

So you answer a question with more questions. Your questions seem to question the legitimacy of mine rather to try to answer them. Keep in mind, please, that this not a polemical exercise. It's not about winning or losing an argument as far as I'm concerned. So if the case of the monk is exaggerated it is so in order to imagine a pure hypothetical case of something that we know [or I know] goes on from personal experience. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk with long years of monastical experience addresses the problem of using meditation as escape. Buddhist daily regimens are full of procedures to discourage such behavior. That, in itself testifies to the problem. So, from a minimalist view, there is no single answer to your question about the monk. Every monk is a particular one. Whether he or she is serious may vary from moment to moment as it does for the rest of us. As for the scientist, the proof is in the pudding. What tangible results does he or she produce? It's about the work not the experience of the scientist producing the work.

[Typist]

So you answer a question with more questions. Your questions seem to question the legitimacy of mine rather to try to answer them. Keep in mind, please, that this not a polemical exercise. It's not about winning or losing an argument as far as I'm concerned.

So why are you arguing then??? I don't mind, but isn't your argument sort of arguing with itself?

So if the case of the monk is exaggerated it is so in order to imagine a pure hypothetical case of something that we know [or I know] goes on from personal experience. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk with long years of monastical experience addresses the problem of using meditation as escape. Buddhist daily regimens are full of procedures to discourage such behavior. That, in itself testifies to the problem. So, from a minimalist view, there is no single answer to your question about the monk. Every monk is a particular one. Whether he or she is serious may vary from moment to moment as it does for the rest of us.

Why is it an escape to choose one life experience over another?

As for the scientist, the proof is in the pudding. What tangible results does he or she produce? It's about the work not the experience of the scientist producing the work.

???

[Ierrellus]

Ego becomes a controversial topic only when reified, only when seen as an abstract entity.
Origins of what we call ego are found in human evolution. At some place in our evolving we acquired a mind that is conscious of itself. Consciousness of self does not indicate dualism of mental properties. It indicates a mind's ability to envisage both itself and what is other than itself. This ability allows critical thinking and mental revisions of false starts.
No separate ego falls prey to enticements of self-worth that involve hypocrisy. No separate ego estranges one from spiritual awarenesses. It takes the entire mind, with its needs and desires, to succumb to hubris at the expense of nemesis.

Ierrellus-- Your statements seem crystal clear to me until I get to "hubris at the expense of nemesis". Please expound on that for me. Also do you have a solution for that dilemma?

Just considering that it takes all constituents of mind to make a false start. As James of the Bible notes, external wars are conceived by internal wars. False starts, that come from a divided mind, have consequences. Hubris is possible in a mind that is divisive; nemesis inevitably follows. I have trouble, as do others here, of blaming the ego for the false starts. It does not operate alone.

[Ierrellus]

If we wish, we could examine an exaggerated case of the monk who spends his whole life meditating in the monastery.

Is the monk escaping from reality? Or has he devoted himself to the serious exploration of one aspect of human experience?

If a scientist spends his whole life in his lab, why do we not ask if he is escaping from reality?

Gregory Mendel was a monk who discovered inherited characterists by growing peas. I'm sure that, since he was a monk, he did his share of meditation. Yet, he also became the father of genetics!
I'm a Christian naturalist. That would appear to be oxymoron to most folks. But it still lies within the realms of ultimate possibility. I simply believe in a religion that is an extension of the natural, physical world, not in some religion based on disconnected ideals or supernatural occurences.
The monk who meditates may reveal to us not only his reality of self, but also a reality of mental extension into the unknown--never into the unknowable.

[felix dakat]

Escape, if it is necessary, is never something trivial. It has become clear that modern man in his general inability to cope, often uses illness or disease to escape the situation he can't cope with. That is, the body reacts pathologically to a situation in order to escape and at least produces symptoms, if not the cause of serious illnesses. Meditation is the opposite, and generally helps us cope, assists our health and is essentially “time off.” It isn't so much an escape from ego as ignoring it for a while, but helps us focus on the way it is.

Yes escape is significant in itself. In pure escape, it seems you don't transcend anything so much as abandon one experience for another. Pure meditation, on the other hand, would have no function whatsoever. V sent me a novel by Tom Robbins entitled "Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates wherein it states that meditation...

"hasn't got a damn thing to do with anything, "cause all it has to do with is nothing. Nothingness. Okay? It doesn't develop the mind, it dissolves the mind. Self-improvement? Forget it, baby. It erases the self. Throws the ego out on its brittle ass. What good is it? Good for nothing. Excellent for nothing. Yes, Lord, but when you get down to nothing, you get down to ultimate reality. It's then and exactly then that your sensing the true nature of the universe, you're linked up with the absolute Absolute, son, and unless your content with blowing smoke up your butt all your life, that there's the only place to be. "

Those claims are, of course, maximal ones, as I suppose all purists make. But, they seem to rid meditation entirely of escapism. In a minimalist view, maybe we should admit that escape is part of our agenda and proceed in moderation. Yes, no?

[felix dakat]

Typist-

So why are you arguing then??? I don't mind, but isn't your argument sort of arguing with itself?

I don't claim that my posts are position or argument free. I am representing my understanding of a position. But, I'm just asking for a collaborative effort, if that's possible. If, my position goes down in flames, hopefully I will have the grace to let go and move on.

Why is it an escape to choose one life experience over another?

It isn't necessarily as far as I can tell. It isn't necessarily choosing transcendence either though, I don't think.

As for the scientist, the proof is in the pudding. What tangible results does he or she produce? It's about the work not the experience of the scientist producing the work.
???

I don't know what your question is.

[Typist]

No worries Felix. I'm collaborating by posting. Don't take it personally, ok?

[tentative]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

[Typist]

Tentative is wise, but man, what a party pooper. Just kidding, I like party pooping quite a bit myself.

A little story....

In college, about 147 years ago, I went to see a guru give a talk at the University. The room filled up, and the students took their seats. We waited for awhile. And the speaker appeared.

He sat down on the stage, and looked in our direction. We perked up our ears and waited for the talk. Ok, here we go....

And then....

Nothing.

He just sat there. Minute after minute after minute.

Nobody knew what to do. So we just sat there too. WTF???

And then something I'll always remember happened, because I would have never believed it if I wasn't there myself.

This entirely tangible aura of peace began to gradually fill the room. You could feel it in you, and around you. Like a fog rolling in. Very strange, but very real.

And then eventually he gave his talk, which I can not remember a single word of.

You have to understand, I was, and largely remain, a skeptic of such fellows. The one I'm referring to here eventually got kicked out of his own ashram for having sex with a follower (celibacy was a big deal to them!) and then lying about it.

But man, he had the nothing moves.

[Oughtist]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

But that WAS. my preconception! ... at some point, isn't one supposed to turn one's mind away from the pond of thought, and observe emptiness? Is this not the point where Naturalism starts saying, WTF!?"

[Moreno]

You can escape into any kind of experience/lifestyle. Escape in the sense of avoiding something instead of choosing to do something for positive reasons. Being social, working a lot, having hobbies, even having kids can all be forms of escape.

[Moreno]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

Well, we could all meditate and then not post our descriptions of our experiences, but that would be a non-thread, however beneficial elsewhere. Organized thinking and intuitive thinking can actually help, since these kinds of thinking are not the circular, never quite getting anywhere, half noticed thinking many engage in a lot.

[Bob]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

Well, we could all mediate and then not post our descriptions of our experiences, but that would be a non-thread, however beneficial elsewhere. Organized thinking and intuitive thinking can actually help, since these kinds of think are not the circular, never quite getting anywhere, half noticed thinking many engage in a lot.

[tentative]

Sorry, but after 8 pages of yammering and metaphoring, it's as close as words are ever going to take us. I love talking about (obviously) but there comes a point...

[Bob]

V sent me a novel by Tom Robbins entitled "Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates wherein it states that meditation...

"hasn't got a damn thing to do with anything, "cause all it has to do with is nothing. Nothingness. Okay? It doesn't develop the mind, it dissolves the mind. Self-improvement? Forget it, baby. It erases the self. Throws the ego out on its brittle ass. What good is it? Good for nothing. Excellent for nothing. Yes, Lord, but when you get down to nothing, you get down to ultimate reality. It's then and exactly then that your sensing the true nature of the universe, you're linked up with the absolute Absolute, son, and unless your content with blowing smoke up your butt all your life, that there's the only place to be. "

Those claims are, of course, maximal ones, as I suppose all purists make. But, they seem to rid meditation entirely of escapism. In a minimalist view, maybe we should admit that escape is part of our agenda and proceed in moderation. Yes, no?

I see that you have had a traumatic experience regarding meditation and are blowing things out of proportion. This quote does explain a number of things you have written in the past, but it has absolutely nothing to do with transcendence and I would agree with tentative: We've reached the limit. How do Americans say?

“I'm outa here!”

[felix dakat]

V sent me a novel by Tom Robbins entitled "Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates wherein it states that meditation...

"hasn't got a damn thing to do with anything, "cause all it has to do with is nothing. Nothingness. Okay? It doesn't develop the mind, it dissolves the mind. Self-improvement? Forget it, baby. It erases the self. Throws the ego out on its brittle ass. What good is it? Good for nothing. Excellent for nothing. Yes, Lord, but when you get down to nothing, you get down to ultimate reality. It's then and exactly then that your sensing the true nature of the universe, you're linked up with the absolute Absolute, son, and unless your content with blowing smoke up your butt all your life, that there's the only place to be. "

Those claims are, of course, maximal ones, as I suppose all purists make. But, they seem to rid meditation entirely of escapism. In a minimalist view, maybe we should admit that escape is part of our agenda and proceed in moderation. Yes, no?

I see that you have had a traumatic experience regarding meditation and are blowing things out of proportion. This quote does explain a number of things you have written in the past, but it has absolutely nothing to do with transcendence and I would agree with tentative: We've reached the limit. How do Americans say?

“I'm outa here!”

How do you see that? I think you have misunderstood me. I'm unaware of a traumatic experience meditating that I've had. What am I blowing out of proportion where? Are you referring to the Robbins quote or what I said or both? I value your insight why flee from giving it?

[felix dakat]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

But that WAS. my preconception! ... at some point, isn't one supposed to turn one's mind away from the pond of thought, and observe emptiness? Is this not the point where Naturalism starts saying, WTF!?"

There are others kinds of transcendence than meditating on emptiness. Like when someone sacrifices their life for a value like freedom or gives one life to works of compassion, paints beautiful picture or philosophically pursues of Truth. Either discourse can be as transcendent as relative silence, or we have hit on a fundamental dualism between the two phenomenon.

[felix dakat]

You can escape into any kind of experience/lifestyle. Escape in the sense of avoiding something instead of choosing to do something for positive reasons. Being social, working a lot, having hobbies, even having kids can all be forms of escape.

Sure. Yet, escape and transcendence are not mutually exclusive or diametrically opposite. For example, escaping from ignorance is a transcendent experience.

[felix dakat]

Ego becomes a controversial topic only when reified, only when seen as an abstract entity.
Origins of what we call ego are found in human evolution. At some place in our evolving we acquired a mind that is conscious of itself. Consciousness of self does not indicate dualism of mental properties. It indicates a mind's ability to envisage both itself and what is other than itself. This ability allows critical thinking and mental revisions of false starts.
No separate ego falls prey to enticements of self-worth that involve hypocrisy. No separate ego estranges one from spiritual awarenesses. It takes the entire mind, with its needs and desires, to succumb to hubris at the expense of nemesis.

Ierrellus-- Your statements seem crystal clear to me until I get to "hubris at the expense of nemesis". Please expound on that for me. Also do you have a solution for that dilemma?

Just considering that it takes all constituents of mind to make a false start. As James of the Bible notes, external wars are conceived by internal wars. False starts, that come from a divided mind, have consequences. Hubris is possible in a mind that is divisive; nemesis inevitably follows. I have trouble, as do others here, of blaming the ego for the false starts. It does not operate alone.

So your view is holistic. The very appearance of dualism is the crux of the problem. Right?

[felix dakat]

Tentative is wise, but man, what a party pooper. Just kidding, I like party pooping quite a bit myself.

A little story....

In college, about 147 years ago, I went to see a guru give a talk at the University. The room filled up, and the students took their seats. We waited for awhile. And the speaker appeared.

He sat down on the stage, and looked in our direction. We perked up our ears and waited for the talk. Ok, here we go....

And then....

Nothing.

He just sat there. Minute after minute after minute.

Nobody knew what to do. So we just sat there too. WTF???

And then something I'll always remember happened, because I would have never believed it if I wasn't there myself.

This entirely tangible aura of peace began to gradually fill the room. You could feel it in you, and around you. Like a fog rolling in. Very strange, but very real.

And then eventually he gave his talk, which I can not remember a single word of.

You have to understand, I was, and largely remain, a skeptic of such fellows. The one I'm referring to here eventually got kicked out of his own ashram for having sex with a follower (celibacy was a big deal to them!) and then lying about it.

But man, he had the nothing moves.

Whatever his extracurricular activities, if one who can evoke an aura of peace in a room full of people has a kind of power. Did others confirm to you that they experienced the room fill with peace, or was that your experience alone?

[felix dakat]

STOP!! The more you attempt to dissect, to categorize, to word it to death, transcendence is pushed further and further away. All the metaphors in any and every language is not the state of being called transcendence. Be still, let go your pre-conceived notions, the myriad pigeonholes of knowing, and just observe...

Is that a command you are shouting? Sorry, let the metaphors flow I say. Why can't metaphors be transcendent? I assert I have read poetry and heard lyrics sung that are transcendent. If my notions are pre-conceived in error, let me through discourse shed them for true ones. That's what this thread aspires to.

[Moreno]

You can escape into any kind of experience/lifestyle. Escape in the sense of avoiding something instead of choosing to do something for positive reasons. Being social, working a lot, having hobbies, even having kids can all be forms of escape.

Sure. Yet, escape and transcendence are not mutually exclusive or diametrically opposite. For example, escaping from ignorance is a transcendent experience.

Ah yes, I was pointing out that any activity can be a negative escape that you are pointing out that escape can be positive.