I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:33 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is "To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death"
Note the new term 'threats'.
Which was much closer to MY formulation of the how evolution and natural selection created patterns in animals including us. IOW without acknowledging that my formulation made more sense, you integrated my formulation into yours. You say that my argument was ignorant and then you steal from it. It would be even better if you stole more. That the threats need only be avoided. There need not be a subconscous fear of death in relation to these threats, nature being parsimonius. It just needs to get the animal in question to avoid predators, rotting meat (unless they are, say, vultures), water if they can't swim and so on.

Do you have any idea how rude it is to dismiss someone's argument as ignorant while stealing from it to avoid the very criticism it weighed against you?

You also claim in this post to Fanman that you countered all arguments. But, in fact, in relation to my longer post where I presented an alternative root of religion, you did not respond in the least to my main points. No attempt was made at all.

Let's just emphasize that. It was not that your attempt to counter failed or had weaknesses, you couldn't even bother to respond.

You repeated you position.

Rational people are going to not respect your approach.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:23 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

What is that I don't understand? The statement made by KT above is pure ignorance.

What is your explanation for claiming this?

How did you miss that obvious point.
KT stated it 'To avoid death is to fear the threats of death' do not make sense.
I have given example why it make sense.
To avoid death is to be triggered to fear the threats of death from poisonous snakes and other creatures.

You cannot be that ignorant as well?

#-o Of course I agree with him. Why wouldn't I? He broke it down to evolution, did you miss that?

How can you be so blind and ignorant.
I mentioned DNA-RNA in genes, that is the fundamentals of evolution!!
I stuck to the fundamentals of evolution and manifestation of evolution and religions which is very basis to those who are familiar with evolution. While KT referred only the external forms of evolution and religion.
The default efficiency of gaining knowledge is to master the knowledge of the substance of any field and one can understand its form easily.

There are tons of research that has been done regarding the subconscious mind, e.g. the workings of the primal responses, the instincts, the emotions, etc.

Do any of those tons explicitly claim that all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death?

You insisted there is no such thing as the subconscious mind. I countered you with the above.

I have relied on the research findings related to the subconscious mind to infer the root cause of all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death based on the arguments and justifications I have given.

You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is "To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death"
Note the new term 'threats'.
What is so tautological about that?

In my view it is. I don't really see what difference “threats” makes to the statement. Because by “threats of death”, you mean things that can cause death - hence death. Maybe I'm wrong though.

You are short-sighted on this.
There are also tons of research to substantiate, any thing that is a "threat of death" will trigger fears of death [reaction of fears] when a normal person is faced with such a threat of death and initially there is no possibility of escape or in a difficult situation to escape that threat of death.

Because I took the trouble to study the root causes, thus aware of them.

You assume that those you are referring to haven't? Because they have not reached the same conclusion as you, you interpret that they are ignorant. That is funny. Not only does it assume that you think that people don't look into things that directly concern them, but that you found the root cause because you are thorough and sagacious. Like you've found some kind of intellectual holy grail. However, given your arguments relating to the root cause of religion, it doesn't seem that you've studied enough.

?? I have not studied enough in comparison to what you have studied as enough?
Give me a clue what you know that I don't know. I am very interested as that would increase my knowledge database.

As I have stated many times, the currency in this forum is proper and justified arguments.
Why I disagree with the counter-arguments of others is when their arguments are not justified nor convincingly.

This is very obvious.
E.g. the typical Christian will be not doubt they are assured of eternal life as promised in John 3:16 by Jesus/God.
The exception is only when the person is skeptical, doubt and do not have faith in Jesus/God, where if any would be the very small minority.


I don't agree. It is unlikely that you will encounter a Christian who doesn't have doubts (they are human) about going to heaven or God in general. Because people are individuals, I don't think there is a generic Christian in the sense that you mean. And if Christians tell you that they have no doubts, how would you know if they were telling the truth? How would you know if they were telling the truth to themselves? I don't think you can apply majorities or minorities in this case. Not without being ridiculously arbitrary.

The final authority of Christianity is Jesus/God's words in the Gospel. If not, where else?
Whatever I relied on Christians, I reconciled their words to the words of Jesus/God in the Gospel.

You can confirm this yourself, i.e. are you and do have a conscious fear of death all the time?
Serious death anxiety or thanatophobia [conscious fear of death] is not a common mental issue.
I have noted most members in philosophical forum assert they do not have fear of death [I presume constantly].
I believe if you ask the question to all humans, 99% will reply they do not have a constant fear of death.
Therefore the inherent and unavoidable subconscious fear of death is suppressed naturally and not relayed to the conscious mind on a permanent basis.


How do you know that the fear of death is suppressed by the subconscious, where is your evidence of this? The above is not evidence, it is a speculation based upon your interpretation (can't you see that?). Couldn't the case be that people accept the fact that they are going to die, because it is an inevitable part of life? Do you understand the nature of acceptance and how it affects people's mental states?

Other than personal experience and based on what others stated, I made a very logical deduction, i.e.

    P1. People has a serious mental issue [thanatophobia] if they fear death consciously.
    P2. The majority 99% or more do not suffer from thanatophobia.
    C3. Therefore the majority 99%+ do not fear death consciously

'Do not fear death consciously means they do not have a conscious fear of death.
This meant the fear of death which is inherent and avoidable as programmed in the subconscious mind is suppressed and not relayed to the conscious mind like other emotions.

The majority turned to God to counter their fear of death with an assurance of eternal life thus relieve the anxieties.
It is only a small % of people who will rationalize to accept they will die because it is an inevitable part of life, some of them will succeed, but not all of them can control what the subconscious mind's reaction to it and exuding such a fear indirectly as merely feelings of anxieties, despairs, meaningless, Angst, etc.
Note the once world's most famous atheist who could reason his death is natural and has no fears, but later in his life, he turned to God [deism] to relieve the indirect manifestations of the subconscious fear of death which he was ignorant of.

Are you are professional philosopher whilst participating in the "Philosophy" forum.
What counts is whether my views are rational and well justified.

Really? You don't have to be a professional philosopher to engage in philosophy. But you do have to be educated in the field of psychology to be able to diagnose people. What are you trying to say here, that you can diagnose people without any formal training if your views are rational and well justified? You can claim what you want about people, but there is a difference in claiming things about people, and creating complex diagnosis.

I did not offer any professional advise or diagnosis.
As such there is no reason why I cannot discuss psychology in a forum like this. The point is whether the argument I presented is reasonable or not. If not, why?

I have NEVER claimed EVERYTHING is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear is not the main root but the sub-sub root comprising other instincts that are necessary to avoid death, e.g. hunger, to breathe, physical security, and few others.

It was an exaggeration based upon the pattern of your comments, didn't you recognise that? You claimed that the fear of public speaking was reducible to the subconscious fear of death, and you can't even see the problems with that claim.

What is the problem with that?
The ongoing point is with the fear of death [conscious and unconscious] thus all points that need to be relevant will be reduced to fear of death.
I had justified how the fear of public speaking is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The main fundamentals which all human actions can be reduced to are;

    1. The subconscious fear of death to avoid death
    2. The sex drive for procreation to produce the next generation.
    3. The nurturing drive to nurture the youngs of the next generation

All other humans actions are aligned to the above or merely sub-systems or are deviations due to errors, e.g. the suicidal not avoiding death.

What I am claiming is 'the root of all mainstream religions is the subconscious fear of death'. All other reasons given by believers why they are religious are merely secondary and are forms.

Which is patently, a nonsense.

I have given my reasons which you had not countered but merely dismissed without justification, i.e. based on uneasy feeling of disagreement.

Do you understand the phrase 'substance over forms?'

In what context? I took your comment to mean that for some reason, you thought that KT had responded to the form of your claims, rather than the substance.

Yes, as mentioned I had focused on the substance of evolution and religions but KT is focused on the forms of evolution and various form of religions.

Note your counters are very superficial which due to misrepresentation of my views and ignorance of the subject matter.

You might feel that way, but can you demonstrate that, other than to say that I disagree with you?

You added 'words' to my statement to change the meaning totally.
Note you disputed and question there no difference between conscious and subconscious mind.
You lack knowledge on the depth of the emotion of fears and its neural mechanisms traceable to deep down the brain.

If you disagree and inform me I am ignorant of this and that [as substantiated with links and argument] I will definitely look into them as they potentially can increase my database if they are justified knowledge.

Show me one point above where my counter-points are not effective to contra your views?

You won't be able to recognise them, the proof of that is the above.

Where? you need to be specific.

One of the problem is your lack of knowledge on the Neuro-Psychology of Fear. I suggest you read up on this topic.


Category error. Based upon the inference that you believe yourself to be right in all cases.

...The point is this. You believe that your “thesis” is justified, but the justification is your interpretation of how you think the available information relates to your claims – hence it is subjective. Evidence of something necessarily has to show specifically that what you're claiming is both valid and supported factually. However, what you're claiming as evidence can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn't necessarily lead to or demonstrate what you conclude it does. You don't seem to recognise how important this is in substantiating your claim. As such your thesis is only justified to you.

Also;

You infer that when people disagree with you, they are lacking intellectually i.e. unable to rationalise, not reflecting deeply enough, lacking knowledge of the subject matter etc. You also claimed that KT has not focused on the substance of this issue, but it is patently clear that from reading his posts that he has. IMV, these are category errors.

I have done very extensive research into the topic of fear.
I have justified my argument re fear, i.e. the subconscious fear of death from the knowledge and theories from those research findings.
As such they are objective subject to the above justified true beliefs.

I agree, what I have concluded is not 100% certain but subject to knowledge available so far.

However, my conclusions are empirically feasible and qualify for further testing.
In contrast, the idea of God as real is moot, a non-starter and can be ignored outright.

In addition, I have stated my thesis is already put into practice in Buddhism in terms of theories, principles, knowledge, wisdom and actual practices. The limitation, Buddhism has no neuro-Science or neuro-psychology, thus did not pin point the subsconscious fear of death in terms of neural-mechanisms.
Note the recent, the Dalai Lama [very scientific minded] has ceded Buddhist truths to Science.

The optimism is there is potential trend that will enable humanity to trace and pin-point the subconscious fear of death down to its neural basis and thus have the potential to modulate humanity from religions and its bag of negativity and cons.

    A connectome (/kəˈnɛktoʊm/) is a comprehensive map of neural connections in the brain, and may be thought of as its "wiring diagram". More broadly, a connectome would include the mapping of all neural connections within an organism's nervous system.
    http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:47 am

Prismatic,

You insisted there is no such thing as the subconscious mind. I countered you with the above.


Where and when? Can you quote me on that?
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:15 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is "To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death"
Note the new term 'threats'.
Which was much closer to MY formulation of the how evolution and natural selection created patterns in animals including us. IOW without acknowledging that my formulation made more sense, you integrated my formulation into yours. You say that my argument was ignorant and then you steal from it. It would be even better if you stole more. That the threats need only be avoided. There need not be a subconscous fear of death in relation to these threats, nature being parsimonius. It just needs to get the animal in question to avoid predators, rotting meat (unless they are, say, vultures), water if they can't swim and so on.

Do you have any idea how rude it is to dismiss someone's argument as ignorant while stealing from it to avoid the very criticism it weighed against you?

You also claim in this post to Fanman that you countered all arguments. But, in fact, in relation to my longer post where I presented an alternative root of religion, you did not respond in the least to my main points. No attempt was made at all.

Let's just emphasize that. It was not that your attempt to counter failed or had weaknesses, you couldn't even bother to respond.

You repeated you position.

Rational people are going to not respect your approach.

Stealing your idea??
Evolution and its forms of expression is public knowledge.
My views are all grounded on Evolution, based on genes, DNA-RNA.
Note I stated, I am more interested in the fundamentals of evolution than its forms in this case, thus did not discuss the forms unless necessary.

Note you stated my statement do not make sense.
"To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death."
That is ridiculous.

I had stated long before, there are many 'threats of death' to avoid death e.g. hunger, physical security, not breathing, need of water, etc.
My focus regarding religion not on the above but rather is the 'to avoid death, humans must fear death.' This fear of death is activated at the subconscious level.
In any case, the other main avoidance of death, hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, etc. will trigger the fear of death, so that the person will be driven to avoid death.

If a person is trapped in the middle of a wide desert with water limited to 2-3 days and knowing access to water is slim, the subconscious fear of death is trigger and thus will drive him to seek water with whatever resources he has.
It is likely he will also have a conscious fear of death subsequent to the initial instinctual subconscious fear of death.
In such critical situation of possible death, the subconscious fear of death will trigger subconscious reaction that drive a person to panic, concern, anxious or whatever depending on his constitution and psychological state.

Yes, to avoid death from critical situations due to potential death from hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, it is inevitable fear of death will be triggered instinctively with various bodily reactions to deal with the potential danger of death.

All other fears, consciously or subconsciously are reducible mainly to the potential fear of death related to critical situations involving hunger, water, physical security, not breathing. Other fears may be related to sex, procreation and nurturing which is related primarily to the question of religions.

But the critical point related to religion is purely the subconscious fear of death being triggered upon the fear of death, NOT due to hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, or no sex.
This is why the central focus of all theistic religions is seeking eternal life to avoid permanent death.

I have made the attempt to cover all the points you claimed I have missed. I noted your points are mostly forms and I have summarized them into their substance.
Otherwise which one is not addressed.
It would be more efficient if you open a new thread for the omitted point [number them as you often do] so I don't miss any critical point of yours.
Note my intellectual integrity and intent of not leaving any challenge unchallenged.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:20 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

You insisted there is no such thing as the subconscious mind. I countered you with the above.


Where and when? Can you quote me on that?

This is tedious and all because your memory failed in this case.
Here it is at page 16;

Fanman wrote:How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?

It is not perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind.
It is a scientific fact, all humans has a mind comprising a conscious and unconscious part.
Note;
https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html
If you read the above article you will definitely agree with the demarcation.
You disagree with the above?


viewtopic.php?p=2744154#p2744154

Further on the thread, you question the concept of the
'subconscious' and 'conscious' mind again.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:32 am

iambiguous wrote:"Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?"
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

According to Buddhism, the central characteristics of existence are impermanence, suffering and ‘no-self’. The Buddha’s view of life as suffering might give rise to the notion that Buddhism is essentially pessimistic. However, as I argue, in offering a complete liberation from suffering, Buddhism is highly optimistic.


You are reading a bastardized version of Buddhism, thus wasting time critiquing the wrong view of Buddhism-proper.
Suggest you research Buddhism-proper properly to avoid the above straw-man.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:08 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

You insisted there is no such thing as the subconscious mind. I countered you with the above.


Where and when? Can you quote me on that?

This is tedious and all because your memory failed in this case.
Here it is at page 16;

Fanman wrote:How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?

It is not perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind.
It is a scientific fact, all humans has a mind comprising a conscious and unconscious part.
Note;
https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html
If you read the above article you will definitely agree with the demarcation.
You disagree with the above?


viewtopic.php?p=2744154#p2744154

Further on the thread, you question the concept of the
'subconscious' and 'conscious' mind again.


I question your interpretation skills. If you interpret what I stated both as an insistence and a claim that there is no subconscious.

I also clarified what I meant after stating that. Whereby you replied and stated I needed to be more specific.

I questioned the relationship of the conscious and subconscious mind, not the existence of them.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:49 am

Fanman wrote:I question your interpretation skills. If you interpret what I stated both as an insistence and a claim that there is no subconscious.

I also clarified what I meant after stating that. Whereby you claimed I needed to be more specific.

I questioned the relationship of the conscious and subconscious mind, not the existence of them.

Fanman: How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?

Literally in the above, it is implied that I don't have real knowledge of the subconscious mind and you think there is only 'perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?'.

If you agree the subconscious and conscious mind exists as real, then, there is the subconscious fear of death.

It is obvious there is an indisputable 'fear of death.'

There is this point;

Therefore the fear of death, as established unconsciously, must have an unconsciously part to the fear of death, i.e. the unconscious or subconscious fear of death.

I have argued extensively, how this subconscious fear of death is the basis for all religions.
Note I have provided evidence of how 'death' [eschatology] is the central focus of all mainstream theistic religions.

KT had argued there are other reasons why theists turned to theistic religions, e.g. agency. This agency is reducible to the 'subconscious fear of death' i.e. directing attention to the agency to please them, making sacrifices to them so that they can escape the agency's wrath.
There is the agency of Jesus/God who made promises of eternal life in exchange for Christians to comply with Jesus/God's words.

For any reason relating to agency and divinity [not social or political reasons which are pseudo], I can reduce that to the subconscious fear of death.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:22 am

Prismatic,


Fanman: How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?

Literally in the above, it is implied that I don't have real knowledge of the subconscious mind and you think there is only 'perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?'.


No. It means what I stated. That at that point in the discussion, your knowledge seemed perceived rather than actual. Not perceived as coming from your imagination, but perceived as being a result of your interpretation.

Very clearly, this...

and you think there is only 'perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?'


...is not implied in what I stated.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:21 pm

Prismatic,
There is this point;
Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_proc ... _the_brain

Therefore the fear of death, as established unconsciously, must have an unconsciously part to the fear of death, i.e. the unconscious or subconscious fear of death.


This research article you've posted does not discuss the subconscious mind, it specifically states that "fear is established unconsciously", that's it - that is the thrust of the paper. I've read elsewhere that there is a difference between unconscious and subconscious, but you don't seem to have recognised that; if you did, you would have included it in your... thesis. If the researchers were referring specifically to the subconscious mind don't you think they would of directly stated that? Also, the article relates to brain, not mind, and makes no mention of the subconscious mind. The research is centred upon fear in general (as far as I can gather), it doesn't specifically discuss the fear of death or fear in relation to religion - it also says nothing about why religions were developed. It seems as though it is purely your inference that the article supports what you're claiming, which to me, doesn't seem justified in the least. I can't see how it actually supports your claim, or why you think that it does?

I have argued extensively, how this subconscious fear of death is the basis for all religions.
Note I have provided evidence of how 'death' [eschatology] is the central focus of all mainstream theistic religions.


Given your earlier claim that I had insisted that there was no such thing as a subconscious, your interpretation of the wiki article you posted, your interpretation that people applying agency to things (as myself and KT discussed earlier) is reducible to the subconscious fear of death, your claim that KT is not discussing the substance of the issues etc. It is clear to me that in this discussion, you cannot interpret things well enough to discuss them meaningfully, accurately or in the context which they are intended, but that is just my opinion.

As such, it is not a case of the counter-arguments not being valid, but your inability to recognise the validity of them. Or in general, to acknowledge the validity of arguments which are contrary to what you believe is right.
Last edited by Fanman on Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:31 am, edited 4 times in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:32 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:You are reading a bastardized version of Buddhism, thus wasting time critiquing the wrong view of Buddhism-proper.
Suggest you research Buddhism-proper properly to avoid the above straw-man.


I've already addressed this above:

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:As usual you are ignorant of Buddhism-proper and how it is to be applied properly, that caused you to come to the above silly conclusions.


As others have in turn pointed out above, when you make this argument, you are only iterating that until others share your own assessment of Buddhism-proper they are -- by definition -- understanding it improperly. Which is why over and again I propose that you take Buddhism-proper out into the world of actual human interaction and situate it in a context most here will be familiar with.

Like the one I provided above:

If you find yourself in a situation that involves, say, reacting to a close friend who is about to be deported as an "illegal immigrant", how attached to or detached from an actual existential self might you be?


And:

If you are that immigrant about to be uprooted from loved ones and sent packing back to Guatemala, it may be considerably more difficult to detach "I" from the actual reality of the flesh and blood self here and now.


Or, sure, choose another context.

Instead, you provide us with yet more "general description" contraptions to grapple with "intellectually".

Prismatic567 wrote:
    As far as the secular individual is concerned, we can not live in the absolute level of reality that has the characteristic or the true nature of the “empty self” or “no-self.”
    In our worldly lives, we can not live in the absolute level of non-dualism and indiscrimination.

    The aim of mindfulness practice for secular people is not to transcend the cycle of life and death that is proclaimed by Buddhism as a religion [not Buddhism proper].
    Instead, the significance of internalizing and integrating the essence of Buddhist psychology organically into one’s self-system lies in enlightening the mind to wisdom such as non-attachment, letting-go to alleviate our suffering, and coping with the uncertain challenges of life.

    We can be mindfully aware of our selves and experiences at the relative level, while simultaneously recognizing the absolute reality of phenomena (Gyatso, 2002).

    Presumably, in fact, mindfulness fully practiced will lead one along the “middle way” (Hanh, 1999)—i.e., seeking a path between the self and no-self.

    We conceptualize the aim here as the mindful self, which takes the self as a process with awareness.
    The more self-as-process is active, the more the person experiences his or her behaviors as volitional and autonomous, and the more his or her actions are experienced as wholehearted and authentic (Ryan and Rigby, 2015).


Pick any one of them and situate it out in the world that we live in.


Now, you will either bring your own objectivist account of "Buddhism-proper" out into the world of human interactions, or you will continue to stay up in the stratosphere of the "general description" assessment that folks of your ilk cling to so tenaciously.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32964
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:26 am

Prismatic,

Note you disputed and question there no difference between conscious and subconscious mind.


No I didn't.

Further on the thread, you question the concept of the
'subconscious' and 'conscious' mind again.


No I didn't. You're interpreting things incorrectly.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:57 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,
There is this point;
Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_proc ... _the_brain

Therefore the fear of death, as established unconsciously, must have an unconsciously part to the fear of death, i.e. the unconscious or subconscious fear of death.


This research article you've posted does not discuss the subconscious mind, it specifically states that "fear is established unconsciously", that's it - that is the thrust of the paper.

I've read elsewhere that there is a difference between unconscious and subconscious, but you don't seem to have recognised that; if you did, you would have included it in your... thesis. If the researchers were referring specifically to the subconscious mind don't you think they would of directly stated that?

Also, the article relates to brain, not mind, and makes no mention of the subconscious mind. The research is centred upon fear in general (as far as I can gather), it doesn't specifically discuss the fear of death or fear in relation to religion - it also says nothing about why religions were developed. It seems as though it is purely your inference that the article supports what you're claiming, which to me, doesn't seem justified in the least. I can't see how it actually supports your claim, or why you think that it does?

The point here is on the demarcation of the conscious and unconscious mind.
So the emphasis on this point is about the fear of death and in relation to religion.

In general, I take both to be the same, i.e.
    1. Conscious and unconscious mind
    2. Conscious and subconscious

What is the Unconscious Mind
    https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html
    Finally, the unconscious mind comprises mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but that influence judgements, feelings, or behavior (Wilson, 2002).
    According to Freud (1915), the unconscious mind is the primary source of human behavior. Like an iceberg, the most important part of the mind is the part you cannot see.

What is the Subconscious Mind
    Scholarly use of the term 'subconscious'.
    The word subconscious represents an anglicized version of the French subconscient as coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet (1859–1947), who argued that underneath the layers of critical-thought functions of the conscious mind lay a powerful awareness that he called the subconscious mind.[1]

    In the strict psychological sense, the adjective is defined as "operating or existing outside of consciousness".[1]

    Locke and Kristof write that there is a limit to what can be held in conscious focal awareness, an alternative storehouse of one's knowledge and prior experience is needed, which they label the subconscious
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious

From the above, there is no difference in general between the definition of the 'unconscious' and 'subconscious.'

If someone want to differentiate them, then one will have to provide the specific qualification and context why they need to differentiate the two words.

The brain versus mind?
I am surprised you have doubts and raised this question.
It is only in biology and anatomy that the brain is studied specifically.
In general in terms of human actions, thoughts and behavior the brain and mind is taken into account at the same time.

Rest of the points later...
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:37 am

The point here is on the demarcation of the conscious and unconscious mind.
So the emphasis on this point is about the fear of death and in relation to religion.


I don't understand what you mean here? You'll have to explain in more detail.

In general, I take both to be the same, i.e.
1. Conscious and unconscious mind
2. Conscious and subconscious


I don't know if that is the case. Some articles claim there is a substantive difference, whilst others claim the terms are interchangeable. However, I did read that “If you are trying to publish an article in a peer reviewed psychoanalysis journal, use unconscious." which may be the reason why the article you posted refers to unconscious, rather than subconscious.

From the above, there is no difference in general between the definition of the 'unconscious' and 'subconscious.'


I have read that there is, so I'm not going to form a solid opinion on this point.

If someone want to differentiate them, then one will have to provide the specific qualification and context why they need to differentiate the two words.


Not necessarily, there are meanings and contexts where the terms differ. I agree that specificity may be required, but the terms can be differentiated informally, and apply to different aspects of the mind.

The brain versus mind?
I am surprised you have doubts and raised this question.
It is only in biology and anatomy that the brain is studied specifically.


Surprised I have doubts and raise questions? Why does that "surprise" you?

In general in terms of human actions, thoughts and behavior the brain and mind is taken into account at the same time.


Generally, I can agree with that, but the article you posted as I interpret, focuses more on the brain than than the mind. It does discuss behaviour, but I don't see how that is related to what you claim or contextually similar?
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:50 am

Fanman wrote:Given your earlier claim that I had insisted that there was no such thing as a subconscious, your interpretation of the wiki article you posted, your interpretation that people applying agency to things (as myself and KT discussed earlier) is reducible to the subconscious fear of death, your claim that KT is not discussing the substance of the issues etc. It is clear to me that in this discussion, you cannot interpret things well enough to discuss them meaningfully, accurately or in the context which they are intended, but that is just my opinion.

As such, it is not a case of the counter-arguments not being valid, but your inability to recognise the validity of them. Or in general, to acknowledge the validity of arguments which are contrary to what you believe is right.

Note I have shown there is no difference between what is 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' in general.
There is no significant issue when I used them interchangeably in the context raised so far.

I had focused on the substance of the issue, i.e.

    1. Evolution.
    2. Genetically, DNA-RNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' to live. [till the inevitable].
    3. To live, all humans are programmed to avoid death. [truism like cup half empty - cup half ful].
    4. To avoid death, all humans are programmed with the fear of death and other instincts.
    5. The fear of death is triggered when there is a threat to the basic instinct, e.g. food/nutrients, breathing, physical security, potential death,

The above exclude all sex-related instinct which very critical is not relevant to the issue of religion in general.

The above covers all the fundamentals.
What else do you think is missing?

Every other actions [other than sex-related] is reducible to the above.

The element of agency as I had explained can be reduced to food, physical security which when threatened trigger the fear of death, thus the need of this super agent is plea with sacrifices [animals or humans] or prayers.
But what is most critical with 'agency' is the direct fear of death. In this case, an agent [illusory God] in invented that will promised eternal life, thus relieved the certainty of physical death.
Adults invented Santa to please their children and adults invented a God [illusory] to soothe their existential crisis and pains.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:03 am

Fanman wrote:
The point here is on the demarcation of the conscious and unconscious mind.
So the emphasis on this point is about the fear of death and in relation to religion.


I don't understand what you mean here? You'll have to explain in more detail.

You stated earlier, "but the article did not mention fear of death or unconscious fear of death"

No, no ..
the links [wiki] was specifically pointing to fear as established in the unconscious [aka subconscious]. To deal with 'fear of death' in that post and point would be off topic.

I had argued in other posts;
The fear of death is activated from the subconscious [aka unconscious] which you are very skeptical.
Thus, logically, the wiki link support my point.

In general, I take both to be the same, i.e.
1. Conscious and unconscious mind
2. Conscious and subconscious


I don't know if that is the case. Some articles claim there is a substantive difference, whilst others claim the terms are interchangeable. However, I did read that “If you are trying to publish an article in a peer reviewed psychoanalysis journal, use unconscious." which may be the reason why the article you posted refers to unconscious, rather than subconscious.

Point is if you have read widely and extensively on the subject, you will note both 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' are used interchangeably, thus that is why I did it.

From the above, there is no difference in general between the definition of the 'unconscious' and 'subconscious.'

I have read that there is, so I'm not going to form a solid opinion on this point.

Ditto: Point is if you have read widely and extensively on the subject, you will note both 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' are used interchangeably, thus that is why I did it.

If someone want to differentiate them, then one will have to provide the specific qualification and context why they need to differentiate the two words.

Not necessarily, there are meanings and contexts where the terms differ. I agree that specificity may be required, but the terms can be differentiated informally, and apply to different aspects of the mind.

Generally, I can agree with that, but the article you posted as I interpret, focuses more on the brain than than the mind. It does discuss behaviour, but I don't see how that is related to what you claim or contextually similar?

The OP is focused on the mind which imperatively involved the brain.
Any reference I linked with the brain would be necessary supporting evidence.
No issue if you apply Principle of Charity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:16 pm

Prismatic,

You stated earlier, "but the article did not mention fear of death or unconscious fear of death"


I can't find where I stated that?

Ditto: Point is if you have read widely and extensively on the subject, you will note both 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' are used interchangeably, thus that is why I did it.


So in your opinion unconscious fear of death is the same as subconscious fear of death? I'm not sure if that is the case, there may be subtle differences applied to the terms. Since you said "Ditto" I would assume that you are not 100% certain. Which is fine.

You rmake some good points by the way.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:54 pm

Prismatic,

I believe that through this phase of argumentation, you've established that there is a subconscious fear of death. That claim is supported. One of my dispositions is skepticism, so whilst I am not completely (or 100%) sold on the idea, I think it would be incorrect to argue against that claim.

Now, I don't believe that your claim "all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death" is justified/established, because I think that people attributing agency to different aspects of reality is the most logical explanation for the existence of God/gods and therefrom religions. This, I think, is largely to do with pattern recognition, a fundamental aspect of the human cognitive process. No doubt the subconscious plays a role in this, but we cannot be sure that the subconscious fear of death is primary. At the risk of being arbitrary, I believe that pattern recognition is based upon subconscious content.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:02 pm

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

I believe that through this phase of argumentation, you've established that there is a subconscious fear of death. That claim is supported. One of my dispositions is skepticism, so whilst I am not completely (or 100%) sold on the idea, I think it would be incorrect to argue against that claim.

Now, I don't believe that your claim "all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death" is justified/established, because I think that people attributing agency to different aspects of reality is the most logical explanation for the existence of God/gods and therefrom religions. This, I think, is largely to do with pattern recognition, a fundamental aspect of the human cognitive process. No doubt the subconscious plays a role in this, but we cannot be sure that the subconscious fear of death is primary.
I would agree with all of the above. I would add that his claim is causal: that religion was caused by a subconscious fear of death. Even if religion soothes a fear of death - which I do think is true in most cases - it does not mean that this is why it arose, what it's purpose is, in part or in totality. It could be a side effect, it could even be a minor side effect. As far as we can tell indigenous religions often had an afterlife, but not always, but they all posit spirits and beings and focus on how one relates to these. There is nothing to indicate that first religions came out of afterlife needs, but rather arose as

systems for dealing with spirits and entities.

Some of these recognized by science, some not, and generally these relations included communication and influence beyond what is currently verified by science.

IOW religions at their core have to deal with relationships with other entities.

That a fear of death, conscious or unconscious may have affected

the specific beliefs in religions

is certainly possible.

But this should not be conflated with being causal of the religions

nor should religions be reduced to

solutions to the fear of death.

If religions were present as solutions to assuaging the fear of death, they were be vastly simpler and instead of afterlife issues being a side effect, and missing from some religions, it would be central. And it would be central by being mentioned much more than other issues in the texts and rituals. But the actual situation is that other things are mentioned much more in the texts, and the rituals and practices focus more on relationships with entities include family, deities and more. They also deal heavily with morals in many cases, certainly in the Abrahamic religions.

These are complex systems, relating to current life in myriad of ways, very focused on the relation to God and other creatures.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:30 pm

KT,

That's right.

IOW religions at their core have to deal with relationships with other entities.


This is a constant in both theistic and polytheistic religions. Because of this, it is likely and a logical conclusion that this is one of the main contributors to religious belief, and the causal link does not require a leap. That it is logical is significant, because logic is a good indicator of validity (I restrain myself from saying "truth"). If we identify the most common features across all religions, it is likely to highlight the cause or causes of why they exist.

Good work.
Last edited by Fanman on Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:52 pm

"Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?"
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

The Self That Buddhism Denies

What is the nature of the self that Buddhists deny, and how can they justify this claim?

It is necessary firstly to understand the Buddhist distinction between ‘persons’ and ‘the self’, which is legitimised by differentiating between conventional and ultimate truths:

“A statement is conventionally true if and only if it is acceptable to common sense and consistently leads to successful practice… A statement is ultimately true if and only if it corresponds to the facts and neither asserts nor presupposes the existence of any conceptual fictions.” (Mark Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy, 2007)


Here of course the distinction I tend to focus on is between the either/or self and the is/ought self. There are historical, cultural, experiential, demographic facts about any particular individual that can be configured into true statements about her from the cradle to the grave. For example, here and now, she either is pregnant or she is not. She either wants to give birth to the baby or she does not. There are laws allowing her too do so or there are not. Others react to her situation as they do or as they do not.

How then can this particular sense of self be construed reasonably as an "illusion"?

And what true statements can be made in regard to the morality of aborting the baby?

As for "ultimate truths", that depends entirely on how this particular individual's situation fits into an ontological grasp of existence itself.

And even here excluding an entirely determined universe; or a human reality that is subsumed in one or another manifestation of solipsism, sim-world, dream world, matrix.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32964
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:44 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

I believe that through this phase of argumentation, you've established that there is a subconscious fear of death. That claim is supported. One of my dispositions is skepticism, so whilst I am not completely (or 100%) sold on the idea, I think it would be incorrect to argue against that claim.

Now, I don't believe that your claim "all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death" is justified/established, because I think that people attributing agency to different aspects of reality is the most logical explanation for the existence of God/gods and therefrom religions. This, I think, is largely to do with pattern recognition, a fundamental aspect of the human cognitive process. No doubt the subconscious plays a role in this, but we cannot be sure that the subconscious fear of death is primary. At the risk of being arbitrary, I believe that pattern recognition is based upon subconscious content.

Note,

    1. Evolution's core and fundamental is genes.

    2. Genetically, DNA-RNA wise, all humans are 'programmed' to live. [till the inevitable].

    3. To live, all humans are "programmed" to avoid death. [truism like cup half empty - cup half ful].

    4. To avoid death, all humans are 'programmed' with the fear of death and other instincts, e.g. food/nutrients, breathing, physical security, potential death, etc.

    5. The fear of death is triggered when there is a threat to the above basic instincts.

    6. To ensure humans can find food, ensure physical security and identify threats to death, all humans are programmed with 'pattern recognition' and other abilities which fan out to a myriad of activities.

    7. Some forms of patterns recognized are attributed with 'agency'. Example the pattern of 'cause and effect' is jumped upon as controlled by an agent, i.e. from primitive great beings, primitive gods, poly-gods, mono-god.

    8. The above agent[s] are dressed up in religions.

From the above, the fear of death in 4 is more fundamental and primary than pattern recognition in 6.
Thus you should be able to work backward from 8 to 1 [the most fundamental].
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:58 am

Fanman wrote:KT,

That's right.

IOW religions at their core have to deal with relationships with other entities.


This is a constant in both theistic and polytheistic religions. Because of this, it is likely and a logical conclusion that this is one of the main contributors to religious belief, and the causal link does not require a leap. That it is logical is significant, because logic is a good indicator of validity (I restrain myself from saying "truth"). If we identify the most common features across all religions, it is likely to highlight the cause or causes of why they exist.

Good work.

Logic?? I have always emphasized on this and presented my arguments logically.
You are jumping all over without sequitur.

Note my logical argument 1-8 above.

Note my point 6 above which include other activities which fan out [like a river into its delta] to a myriad of activities.

But the fundamental of all these myriad of activities is still 4, i.e. the fear of death, so as to avoid death, to live in alignment with what is "programmed" in the genes via evolution.

Whatever the reasons you come up with for the deeper cause of religions, you will not be able to dig and pushed then in deeper than 5 above.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:42 am

Prismatic,

From the above, the fear of death in 4 is more fundamental and primary than pattern recognition in 6.
Thus you should be able to work backward from 8 to 1 [the most fundamental].


From my perspective, pattern recognition is as fundamental to human-beings as the fear of death, and is perhaps the basis of fearing death.

You are jumping all over without sequitur.


Please explain why you believe that is the case?

But the fundamental of all these myriad of activities is still 4, i.e. the fear of death, so as to avoid death, to live in alignment with what is "programmed" in the genes via evolution.


From my perspective, this means, whether you recognise it or not, that you're claiming everything is reducible to the fear of death.

Whatever the reasons you come up with for the deeper cause of religions, you will not be able to dig and pushed then in deeper than 5 above.


I believe that the causes of religion are as I've discussed with KT. Despite your argument, and this ultimatum, I see no reason to change my position.

Where you discuss these:

6. To ensure humans can find food, ensure physical security and identify threats to death, all humans are programmed with 'pattern recognition' and other abilities which fan out to a myriad of activities.

7. Some forms of patterns recognized are attributed with 'agency'. Example the pattern of 'cause and effect' is jumped upon as controlled by an agent, i.e. from primitive great beings, primitive gods, poly-gods, mono-god.

8. The above agent[s] are dressed up in religions.


I believe you are on the right track. Here is an article that I found useful.
Last edited by Fanman on Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:17 am

Prismatic,

Also, when you respond, you should try to address what a person is actually saying. Not just talk over them as if what they say is inconsequential, then use what they say in your arguments. For example, pattern recognition is something that KT brought into the discussion, and it is a vital point. Now you are talking about it as though it is something you inferred. Without acknowledging how it came into the discussion, why or giving the person who thought of it any credit. You just take it and run with it, as if it was always part of your hypothesis.
Fanman
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users