And of course if you were controlled by your DNA’s desire to live as long as possible, as Prismatic frames it, you wouldn’t drive at all.
As we all know, there are those billions of years before any particular one of us come into existence. And then all those billions of years that will follow after each of us one by one dies.
And while some believe we lived before and/or will continue to live after, we can believe anything.
In the interim is the sense of self that goes about the business of subsisting from day to day for, on average, 70 odd years.
And while there may well be no essential self that embodies the sum of all parts in everything that we think, feel, say and do, there are clearly parts that are considerably less illusory than others.
The self that feels hunger, the self that feels thirst. The self that must have any number of things in order just to survive. Things that any community must produce in social, political and economic interactions that for the preponderance of us are in turn anything but illusory.
Sure, particular religious communities can separate themselves from the larger community. They can go about the business of providing for themselves. But each individual self here is still no less composed of any number of factors that are clearly not illusory.
Squabble all you want about what [philosophically] constitutes an identity here but any number of components that comprise your own are not just thought into and out of existence. Real is everywhere here.
But then the parts that some insist are real that, instead, are, if not illusory, comprised of a self that is ever and always evolving over time given new experiences. The self that, over the years, accumulates any number of value judgments that shift and change in a world bursting at the seams with contingency.
Of course, the folks who own and operate the means of production, are often quite content to have a citizenry that preoccupies itself with enlightening the soul. With personal salvation. That way they won’t be meddling politically in who owns what and who gets what.
And who doesn’t.
Not only is the self an illusion but “any number of things” is also an illusion.
All these “things” are a product of the mind.
Phyllo,
I certainly don’t dispute that there is, or that it works. I just don’t find it appealing. There are negative aspects of the sense of self, but if we lose it entirely, we also lose the positive aspects.
As do many other religions, self-help philosophies and practices. I’m quite sure that there are elements of truth in all of them, because they are all derived from the human experience and created by knowledgeable people. They juxtapose our hopes, fears and dreams.
They all claim to improve the human condition, so I suppose the ones we draw from are those which appeal to us the most.
Which just seems wrong to me on a fundamental level. Like training oneself to believe that when you close your eyes, the world disappears! Craving, desire and attachment can all lead to suffering, but they can also be the cause of positive experiences. I think it depends on how we balance things up.
If you take the Buddhist’s view then yes, but from my humble perspective many of the things that Buddhism perceives as suffering are not sufferings in and of themselves, but how we perceive and interact with them.
What you missed in my post above is this very critical point, i.e.
I have explained many times [in earlier posts above] there are two types of fear of death.
-
The conscious fear of death
-
The subconscious ‘fear of death’
My main focus is 2, i.e. The subconscious ‘fear of death.’
Your examples above, losing at chess, driving, etc. are all involving the conscious fear of death.
If one consciously fear death, that is a mental illness, i.e. THANATOPHOBIA. I have mentioned this many times, but most seem not to get it.
Nature has ensured ALL humans [as programmed] do not have a persistently conscious fear of death, otherwise they will be so paralyzed with fear out of the certainty of death, they will not be able to function productively to ensure the preservation of the human species. Where the normal person feel the fear of death consciously, it is most likely to be temporary for most.
My focus on the fear of death at the level of subconscious mind.
Re the neuroscience of fear, it was once researched the amygdala is responsible for the ‘fear’ emotion, but now ‘fear’ is said to arise from deeper in the brain, within the subconscious mind [relatively est. 90% of the mind].
avoiding “A” with “fear of A”
I don’t see how this is problematic.
Humans are instinctively programmed to fear snakes to avoid snakes so that the person will survive and not die. Thus this ‘fear snakes’ is ‘fear death’.
By the way this is not a conscious thought of fearing snakes.
We interpret this as, the subconscious mind strive to ensure the person live and thus the subconscious mind fear death, which in turn generate the instinct of fearing snakes and other very poisonous animals which has killed our ancestors throughout eons ago.
The fight-or-flight response is the avoidance of death which linked to the subconscious fear of death. The subconscious mind ‘fear of death’ programmed the ‘fight-or-flight response’ to avoid death.
Thus there is a fear of death at the subconscious level of the mind which is NOT communicated to the conscious mind.
Instead the fear of death at the subconscious level is manifested in term of the existential crisis which generate anxieties, despair and Angst as reflected in the Buddha Story. The majority of people are not conscious the anxieties, despair and Angst are driven by the ‘fear of death’ at the subconscious level.
To soothe these untraceable anxieties, despair and Angst, most theists cling to theism, which is the most effective balm available.
Caution:
Wherever you read ‘fear of death’ you are likely to think in term of the conscious fear of death. Refrain from such a thought.
In this discussion, the fear of death is related only to the subconscious fear of death that is activated deep in the brain/mind beyond the conscious mind. I often refer this subconscious fear of death as the existential crisis within the subconscious mind.
There is an “empirical-I-self” and there is the “transcendental-I-self.”
The ‘empirical-I-self’ is the self, the person, which can be verify empirically to exist by your own self and others.
In addition to the ‘empirical-I-self’, a theist will claim he has a “transcendental-I-self” which is his soul or spirit that can survive physical death.
Here is one example to differentiate the two;
Let say you are looking at a friend A.
When your friend claim he has a self, it is not an issue when we understand he is referring his empirical self which you can perceive him as an individual person and a basic human being existing in an empirical world.
In this case, we must respect A as an individual self and respect his human rights as a human being and not as a means we can dispense with.
Meanwhile A must acknowledge his empirical-I-self and live as a person to the best of his abilities without contributing any net-negative impact to humanity.
However if A one day claim his self is a soul [permanent ego] and you also has a soul that can survive physical death that need to be saved by God.
In this case, A is being ignorant and has conflated his ‘empirical-I-self’, with “transcendental-I-self” which imply he is claiming he has two selves that are real.
This is where we need to enlightened with the concept of the two-truths theory, i.e. there is self and there is no-self which precisely is,
-there is an 'empirical-I-self and
-there is no “transcendental-I-self”
the point is A should not think of two-selves and conflate them.
If A insist he has a “transcendental-I-self” in terms of a soul or permanent ego, then he is vulnerable to suffer.
E.g. when one try to cling or own anything there a potential of loss which will trigger suffering. The loss [death] of a self triggers the greatest loss and the greatest suffering.
If one shift one perspective to no-self, then there is nothing to be loss.
On the other hand, one need to acknowledge there is a really real empirical self which one has to take care of efficiently to ensure its optimal well-being.
As such one is not removing the whole concept of the real empirical self at all, what one is removing is the wrong concept of self, i.e. “transcendental-I-self” or permanent ego which is an illusion relatively and non-existent.
Everything in life can cause suffering.
It depend on what perspective one look at it, either p or not-p.
As mentioned above re the self, if one cling to the transcendental-I-self as p, then there is sufferings. Thus the transcendental-I-self is not-p, i.e. not-self.
It is the same with anything empirical, if we cling to such things as permanent, then there is likely to be suffering.
Within Buddhism-proper, ‘rebirth’ refer to the rebirth within the cycle that generate sufferings.
It is like the ruminating a worry arising from a problem, where the ruminated worry cause a greater worry and the cycle get worse. Thus the solution here is to prevent the ‘rebirth’ of the next amplified worry by stopping the next oncoming worry from being reborn.
The same effect of rebirth is happening in cases of addition, where the high from one dose, stir the impulse to fulfill a next higher high and the cycle of desires and wants increase with each dose of drug. In every cycle the associated sufferings also increase.
The existential crisis also put a spiral spin in desiring the need for security which has its associated sufferings.
In Buddhism-proper, rebirth refer to the rebirth of the next cycle of events that bring forth is increasing sufferings.
Thus the objective of Buddhism-proper is to end rebirth in that sense.
Analogy:
Dangerous insects cause untold sufferings to farmers.
Farmers used all sort of insecticides to kill these insects.
But every cycle of the birth [rebirth] of the new generations, the insects increase their resistant to the insecticides and bring more sufferings to the farmer.
Thus the solution to the problem is to ensure there is no rebirth of the next generation of the particular insect species.
Buddhism proper do not believe in the rebirth of the soul in another form. Some Buddhist schools believe in such a rebirth idea but that is not in alignment with the core principles of Buddhism-proper.
You keep repeating ‘negating the self’ or getting rid of the self.
As I had stated, Buddhism-proper enlightens one to get rid of the WRONG concept of self as a real thing, a soul, permanent ego, that survives physical death.
The natural state of being is only the empirical-I-self that disappears upon physical death. There is no more empirical-I-self that can be empirically verified after the real empirical person dies.
There are many perspectives to illusion which can be empirical, logical, transcendental illusions.
According to MAYA, all of reality is a transcendental illusion to ensure people do not cling to it as something permanent thus generate sufferings. However we cannot take this as absolute or ultimate.
We cannot ignore the two-truths theory.
Thus empirically, all of reality is real but not absolutely real.
Within the empirical perspective, the person is real so is the oncoming real train the real person is standing on.
In this case we cannot insist and apply the principles of MAYA and thereby insist the oncoming train is an illusion.
The caution within this perspective is not to take whatever is of empirical reality is permanent and exists independent of the human conditions.
There are people who believe the Principles of MAYA is overriding thus all of reality is an illusion thus they do not focus much on empirical reality. These are the one who escape from society into asceticism.
What is critical is to adopt the Path of the Middle-Way [this what Gautama promoted].
In this case, one is in the middle and apply the relevant truth in the right circumstances to optimize one’s well being.
Nah! you mis-understood my points.
You have mixed up the ‘conscious fear of death’ with the ‘subconscious fear of death’.
You won’t lose anything if you avoid clinging to the WRONG concept of self.
I am not a Buddhist in any official sense.
There are many alternative philosophies that are good.
What is good about Buddhism proper is it is very holistic, structured, is systematic with very sound principles and incorporate a generic model of A Life Problem Solving Technique
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516029&hilit=4NT#p2516029
One limitation is Buddhism-proper is a bit too advanced for the majority of people at present thus the majority of so-called Buddhists are engaged in sort of compromised and diluted version to suit their current state.
As stated before you got the wrong understanding of Buddhism proper regarding the concept of the self.
Craving, desire and attachment are inherent in the empirical-I-self, thus we cannot get rid of them, except to modulate them and ensure we are not caught in the cycle of their compounding rebirths. Thus there is a need to apply skillful actions via the 8 Fold Path.
As with the principle of no-self, it also applies to sufferings, i.e. there is no real ‘self’ in suffering. This means there is no sufferings-in-itself.
Thus as with the two-truths theory, there are empirical sufferings which are sensed and felt by humans and thus must be dealt with accordingly. There are no sufferings in and of themselves.
If one were to insist on sufferings in and of themselves, then one is exposed to more sufferings related this view when trapped in the cycles of contact, craving, desire and attachment, then contact, craving, desire and attachment, which then repeat itself.
There re 12 elements in this cycle, i.e.
Fundamental ignorance (Pali: avidya)
Formation (sankhara)
Consciousness (vinnana)
Name and form (namarupa)
Sense faculties (salayatana)
Contact (phassa)
Feeling or sensation (vedana)
Craving or thirst (tanha)
Clinging or grasping (upadana)
Becoming or worldly existence (bhava)
Birth or becoming (jati)
Old age and death (jaramarana)
Then we start all over again.
Prismatic,
I understand that Buddhism rejects the idea of a soul. I wouldn’t argue that there is a soul, but I believe there is a self, empirical and personal. I don’t believe that is what Buddhism teaches/practices though. Buddhism practices that there is no personal self, but there is a dharma-self, which they believe is composed of aggregates; material form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications, and consciousness. I think that in Buddhism, the acceptance of there being any kind of personal self, which is what I mean by “self” and “negation of self”, would hinder the process of detachment from craving, desires, attachment etc. From what I’ve read on Buddhism, they do not refer to an “empirical-self” that seems to be your interpretation.
Is an “empirical self” your interpretation or something that is actually stated in Buddhism? And also, is “Buddhism-proper” a distinction that you’ve made?
-I think that this post by KT is a good summary of how Buddhism perceives the self;
Here, he describes most accurately what I’ve read about Buddhism (oh and thanks for the links all).
Prismatic,
What is the WRONG concept of self? If you’re stance on this taken from Buddhism, then I would guess you’re referring to the transcendental self. But you haven’t stated exactly what you mean?
If you are referring to the transcendental self, how could you possibly know that there is no such thing? You can believe there is no such thing, but you cannot know. If I am wrong and you do somehow know, how do you know, by the absence of empirical evidence?
In most Buddhist sutra, there is no mentioned of the “empirical self” I brought the concept empirical self in to reconcile the various interpretation of such a self within the various Buddhist schools.
The concept of aggregate is limited to the Theravada School and the other school with describe what is supposedly the empirical-self with different terms.
I don’t see any significant difference between what I described as empirical self and the similar self described within the two-truth theory of Buddhism.
In a way I am reconciling the Buddhist view in this case with general philosophy term of 'empirical.
Note the definition empirical,
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Empirical:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Kant used the term ‘empirical self’ regularly to distinguish it from the transcendental self [the illusory self or soul].
Prismatic,
Okay, but I think you need to give these kind of explanations in the introduction not the conclusion, or it can make it seem as though you took it directly (as quoted) from Buddhism.
This is what Christians do when they struggle to find answers! There’s no need to quote scripture brother, I was asking how you know.
His views are idiosyncratic. Further while the translated term ‘aggregate’ may be used primarily when translated the same ideas come up in other forms of Buddhism. The fleeing unstable impermanent empty without self nature of reality. This is consistent through every school, each using their own ways of conveying this. He’s being slippery, though I don’t think he is doing this consciously. But since his post often and in general are mind reading ad homs in relation to theists and other religious people, even Buddhists, I will return the favor again and say that I don’t think he wants to face the Buddhist assertion that not only is their no soul that continues after death, there is no continuous or as they say in philosophy persistent self. He sees others as fearing death and so believing X and this is projection since he simply cannot accept that Buddhism is saying he doesn’t really exist at all. Yes, there is an experiencer or experiencing, but it is not the same one that will be present using his name next years. Buddhism practices of all kinds and texts lead to this conclusion.
Or to appeal to authority as is his wont.
I didn’t miss it. I chose to deal with the issues that I wrote about instead.
I think that your focus on subconscious fear of death makes your theory unfalsifiable.
You identify causes and links which are hidden in the subconscious. Yet, you seem to see them easily and not just in yourself but in all people.
If we bring up cases where a person(s) is not afraid, then you can always say that the fear is subconscious. Which is what you done in your post.
I think that’s a good example of a subconscious fear.
But I don’t think it can be generalized into ‘fear of death’. That’s taking it too far.
You claim a link to fear which you don’t demonstrate. Fight-or flight effectively avoids death. There is no need for fear to be inserted as a necessary factor in the fight-or-flight response.
You keep asserting the same beliefs over and over. As if repetition makes them more true.
“Untraceable”. That’s the problem right there.
KT,
Regarding Prismatic’s comment;
It clearly is an appeal to authority. It seems that because Kant used the phrase/term “empirical self” that somehow reinforces him doing so. I kind of understand what he’s trying to say in how an “empirical self” relates to Buddhism, but Kant was using the term in a different context to what we are discussing here. If he thinks that it applies here, he needs to explain why in more detail, rather than just using it and expecting us to understand what he means, accept its relevance and state an authority for using it.
I don’t want to change him, but I believe that he is too concerned with being right and creating invincible arguments.
Phyllo,
Precisely. That is a huge problem in terms of how he argues/debates, because he will perceive his interlocutors as lacking insight. Which he does… 
His perception of his insight gives the game away, I’m going to try and resist debating with him.
Why Buddhism Is True by Robert Wright
Lachlan Dale considers a naturalistic view of Buddhism.
From the book review section of Philosophy Now magazine.
Of course this approach to Buddhism aligns truth with the assumptions of those who are willing to accept the premise that this is at all relevant to any discussion of Buddhism. After all, you could do the same with any other religious/spiritual narrative.
Does this then even count at all?
Thus…
So, sure, why not explore it in this manner…if only to assess the coherence of the argument itself. And, for folks like me, to measure against my own set of assumptions.
Here, I suspect Buddhism is clearly an effective remedy for any number of men and women who, however they regard the “metaphysical and mystical” aspects of Buddhism, are able to live their lives with considerably less mental, emotional and psychological travail. And only a fool in my view would just shrug that part off.
But, from my vantage point, those who are able to benefit “personally” by including Buddhism in their day to day interactions with others, are still no less thrown into a world where neverending moral and political conflicts are far, far, far more relevant to the overwhelming preponderance of Earth’s inhabitants.
As individuals, some are able to intertwine Buddhism into their daily lives because their daily lives do not involve coming face to face with the reality of political economy around the globe.
Or they can cloister in small communities able to effectively distance themselves from the conflicting goods that rend those millions less able to. Or those little concerned at all with anything that does not revolve around money transactions in the world of consumption.
Then those who are raised in nations where there are large communities of practicing Buddhists. Here, in my view, they become more or less like the other major religious denomination around the globe. In other words, one way or another they integrate Buddhism into the modern capitalist state. Or the modern state capitalist contraptions in, say, Chine and Russia.
Whatever the actual case, it still revolves around dasein in my estimation. Each individual is thrown into a particular world at birth, is indoctrinated as a child to believe certain “truths” and then goes out into the world as an adult the embodiment of his or her own trajectory of experiences, relationships and access to ideas that predispose them to react to Buddhism [as with all other value judgments] in a certain way.
Subjectively and subjunctively.