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 Meno_ » Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:58 am

"Did you donate energy while you were here? Or did you steal energy while you were here?

(steal from (or donate to) the cosmos)

That directly determines your karmic score.

Whether you are liked by entropy or considered a heavy load, a jerk, by it..."


So, donating to the cosmosis like bleeding value, & gaining incarnations toward immortality, or dissipating electromagnetism through inductive, transforming cracks, as reductive processes simplify the circuitry.

Such simplicity works counterclockwise between the orbs of cyclic magnetic polarity, if signified qualitative mechanistic views of the soul in the machine.


A more general , reductive way of putting it, is by the modern , interpretation based on neutral supposition - the required give and take are suppliant to any real cognition of what's involved .

Which is reductive to a quantified probable mode of Western type binary understanding, mostly missing from the East.
Last edited by Meno_ on Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:21 am

iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

iambiguous wrote:So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.

iambiguous wrote:Yet another god awful intellectual contraption which serves only to establish all the more the gap between how you don't "get" Buddhism and how I don't "get" it. For me, my interest revolves around closing the gap between what Buddhists think enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana mean "in their head", how they reconfigure this into the behaviors they choose in a world of conflicting goods...given how they then connect those behaviors here and now to the fate of "I" there and then.


Yet another god awful Biggy maxim; yes, we're all aware of what your interests revolve around--I don't think we could be more aware--I think if we all spontaneously achieved what Buddhists call enlightenment while reading this thread, it wouldn't increase the degree to which we are aware of what your interests revolve around--I think the next time you copy and paste what your interests revolve around, someone's gonna puke all over their keyboard because, frankly, we're sick of hearing it--it doesn't add any value to the conversation at this point--I for one recognize it as a sign that you got lost once again and can't think of anything more relevant to post.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?

Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.

I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.

My own reaction to things like this...

"My response to your latest question is simply that I can't guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won't backfire and cause more suffering, so it's a gamble. But it's one I feel confident in taking. <-- Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?"

...is that once you focus in on "this particular case", distinctions can be made between the actual existence of suffering, embedded in the actual facts of the situation, and the extent to which our own understanding of being "confident" in our own role, in our own particular value judgments is, instead, more the embodiment of how I construe "I" here [psychologically or otherwise] in the profoundly problematic nature of identity and personality...in the sheer number of genetic and memetic variables involved. Factors in which in so many crucial regards we have only so much understanding and control over.


Well, maybe that's all you're doing--just reacting. It certainly doesn't seem like you're actually responding. Most people respond by attempting to answer the question. The way you describe your "reaction" seems to be that my question simply triggers a thought in your mind, a thought about the distinction between the actual existence of [whatever] and our value judgements of [whatever], which needn't be an answer to the question I asked. It's like saying your reaction to my question is to comment on the way my eyes twitch when I ask it--which may interest you a ton, but to the rest of us who are actually looking for an answer, it's irritatingly frustrating. <-- This is why you illicit so much rancor with others. We are frustrated with the way you don't play by the rules of discourse. It's like trying to play catch with a person who won't catch the ball but prefers to comment instead on the way I throw the ball (and expects us to respond appropriately to his comments).

iambiguous wrote:gib: Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.

iambiguous: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.

gib: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.

iambiguous: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:25 am

Dan~ wrote:Christians don't have energy meditation.
Most don't, but then most Buddhists in the East don't participate much or even at all in meditative practices. Christians do have meditative and contemplative practices - mystics and saints (at least some of the latter) certainly used them, many monks, and many people who go in for the more transformative wing of christianity. Unfortunately Christianity in general has moved toward a focus on morals and belief (faith) rather than transformative practice, but those practices have always been part of the religion. And if you read the biographies of those who did focus on those practices they were definitely going through energy meditation experiences.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:55 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

iambiguous wrote:So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.

iambiguous wrote:Yet another god awful intellectual contraption which serves only to establish all the more the gap between how you don't "get" Buddhism and how I don't "get" it. For me, my interest revolves around closing the gap between what Buddhists think enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana mean "in their head", how they reconfigure this into the behaviors they choose in a world of conflicting goods...given how they then connect those behaviors here and now to the fate of "I" there and then.


Yet another god awful Biggy maxim; yes, we're all aware of what your interests revolve around--I don't think we could be more aware--I think if we all spontaneously achieved what Buddhists call enlightenment while reading this thread, it wouldn't increase the degree to which we are aware of what your interests revolve around--I think the next time you copy and paste what your interests revolve around, someone's gonna puke all over their keyboard because, frankly, we're sick of hearing it--it doesn't add any value to the conversation at this point--I for one recognize it as a sign that you got lost once again and can't think of anything more relevant to post.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?

Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.

I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.

My own reaction to things like this...

"My response to your latest question is simply that I can't guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won't backfire and cause more suffering, so it's a gamble. But it's one I feel confident in taking. <-- Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?"

...is that once you focus in on "this particular case", distinctions can be made between the actual existence of suffering, embedded in the actual facts of the situation, and the extent to which our own understanding of being "confident" in our own role, in our own particular value judgments is, instead, more the embodiment of how I construe "I" here [psychologically or otherwise] in the profoundly problematic nature of identity and personality...in the sheer number of genetic and memetic variables involved. Factors in which in so many crucial regards we have only so much understanding and control over.


Well, maybe that's all you're doing--just reacting. It certainly doesn't seem like you're actually responding. Most people respond by attempting to answer the question. The way you describe your "reaction" seems to be that my question simply triggers a thought in your mind, a thought about the distinction between the actual existence of [whatever] and our value judgements of [whatever], which needn't be an answer to the question I asked. It's like saying your reaction to my question is to comment on the way my eyes twitch when I ask it--which may interest you a ton, but to the rest of us who are actually looking for an answer, it's irritatingly frustrating. <-- This is why you illicit so much rancor with others. We are frustrated with the way you don't play by the rules of discourse. It's like trying to play catch with a person who won't catch the ball but prefers to comment instead on the way I throw the ball (and expects us to respond appropriately to his comments).

iambiguous wrote:gib: Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.

iambiguous: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.

gib: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.

iambiguous: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.


Gib said:

"Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now."

Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


And Gib's and Heidegger's meaning are fairly tight

This for my own clarification within the context of some of my own prior observations.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:07 am

Meno_ wrote:Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


I don't know how aligned Biggy's definition of "dasein" is with Heidegger's but I did probe him with this very question on one of my first serious encounters with him here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=190026

You'll have to wade through the first few posts to get to where we start talking about how "dasein" is defined in Biggy's philosophy, but it's one of the first topics we knock off in the discussion.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:52 pm

gib wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Guys, it would be fitting to get Heidegger's meaning of what Dasein is:


"Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself."


I don't know how aligned Biggy's definition of "dasein" is with Heidegger's but I did probe him with this very question on one of my first serious encounters with him here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=190026

You'll have to wade through the first few posts to get to where we start talking about how "dasein" is defined in Biggy's philosophy, but it's one of the first topics we knock off in the discussion.



Has the divergence of meaning due to something else between Biggies definition , Heidegger's definition, and our ideas of any validation of such differences. that may allow some leverage into such shifts and concurrent . epoche or hold on same differences?

In other words, is there a definite relative sense by which the contexts within which such different definitions are held, have an objective , cumulative -functional sense , basically fracturing the sin and for it's self ?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:12 pm

iambiguous wrote:I'll concede that if you'll concede that "good points" of this sort are rooted existentially in dasein.


gib wrote: Sure. (I think.) I concede that. I never had a qualm with that. (I think.) Depends on what you means by "dasein" and "existentially" but so far I've gathered that you mean our mode of being as creatures who are effected by enumerable factors out of our control (our environment, our upbringing, our genetics, our media, our social values and norms, etc.)--and this means that the beliefs and values we end up with are a product of years worth of these factors, over which we have no control, molding us into the people we are. So any "good point" is only a good point in relation to the particular factors that brought us (those of us who agree that it is a good point) to where we are now.


Yes, that's well put. But it's not only of control but of understanding. That's even more important to me because when it comes down to the factors/existential variables we can control, how do we determine the extent to which we truly do understand them. In other words, to the extent that we are in fact able to communicate them to others and then together we are able to demonstrate why and how all other rational [and for some virtuous] people are obligated to concur.

That is when I suggest the focus must shift to particular sets of circumstances that would involve the manner in which Buddhists have come to understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

iambiguous wrote:Then we may well have to agree to disagree regarding the one and the only way that someone can answer questions like this from you.

How about a context?


gib wrote: How can you possibly need a context to answer the question:

So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?


gib wrote: You know what I think. I think you just get lost very easily. I think that's what happened here. It's not that I failed to provide a context, it's that you don't remember the contexts. You don't seem to remember anything further back than a couple posts. When I said "That doesn't answer my question at all" and you replied "Then we may well have to agree to disagree [yada yada yada]..." you had already forgotten what my question was, so you reply with something so generic it could apply to any question.

And to be honest, I wasn't 100% sure I remembered the question either. But you know what I did? I went back and checked, grabbed the quote, and pasted here as a refresher for both you and I. You could do the same with a little effort.

So there you go--a context--namely: you asking for a context. Put yourself back in that scenario--the one that prompted me to ask the question--you were asking for a context <-- that was the context. I responded by asking: "So what's your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words?" <-- You were making a point. I was asking you to clarify your point. You can go back and read it if you need a refresher. You shouldn't need additional context. You should know what your point was.

It's ok to say: it depends, sometimes I ask for a context in order not to get lost, other times I ask for a context so that I see the point in pursuing the discussion--and maybe other times I ask for a context for a number of other reasons. <-- That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But just repeatedly asking for a context in order to avoid answering the question just tells me you refuse to play by the usual rules of engagement, which is what frustrates most people when they argue with you.


Note to others:

Yet another numbing intellectual contraption. This one about "contexts" themselves! One that completely avoids taking what he thinks they mean out into the world of human interactions in which a discussion can unfold relating to what we don't "get" about the main components of Buddhism.

Also, note the tone. He seems to get more genuinely pissed at me because I'm not following his course in regard to this exchange. And that, from my own frame of mind, is just another step down the road to him becoming a Stooge.

On the other hand, I do love polemics. Still, it's when the line is crossed that matters here. Less and less it's about the points I make and more and more about making me the point instead. Stay tuned.

gib wrote:So what's the difference between the response you gave and the response I gave? Is it that the response you gave is a statement on the Buddhist position with respect to abortion? Whereas my response is more a statement on how I would behave? And why is it that statements about one's position have something to do with the manner in which you construe 'I' but statements about one's behavior do not?


iambiguous wrote:My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all rational human beings...given autonomous communication and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in what must certainly be a really, really big gap between our exchange here going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself.

Whatever that might possibly even mean.

Whether the conflicting good revolves around capital punishment or abortion, there are points raised rooted in facts rooted in the either/or world able to be rationally communicated, and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments derived form conflicting understanding of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" here given the points raised in my signature threads.


gib wrote: Ok, let's break this down--if only to show how utterly irrelevant it is to my question.

Just to repeat, my question was: how does my response, which is about what I would do, have nothing to do with the way you construe "I", whereas the response you quoted from that link, which is about what Buddhists believe, has something to do with the way you construe "I"?


How then does this question pertain to the manner in which Buddhists, like all the rest of us, come to embody particular answers embedded in moral and political value judgments relating to human interactions revolving around such conflicting goods as abortion or capital punishment?

That's what I want to focus on given the arguments I make in my signature threads. What you want to focus on however is, here and now, considerably more obscure to me.

For example:

gib wrote: Your response starts with the same old tired line you repeat over and over again: "My point is always to make a distinction between points raised that are able to be demonstrated as true objectively [...] and accepting that this communication will always be subsumed in [...] a really, really big gap between our exchange [...and] an objective understanding of existence itself." <-- To shorten this even more: to distinguish between objectively demonstrable statements and the gap between reality as it actually is and those statements (you really need to work on slicing out some of the excess verbiage).

So how does this answer my question? Are you saying that a statement about a Buddhist's belief counts as a "point raised that is able to be demonstrated as true objectively" whereas a statement about what a Buddhist would do does not? And where does your construal of "I" fit into this? What is your construal of "I"?

You go on. Perhaps this will offer some clarity:

"...there are points raised rooted in facts [...] and there are subjective/subjunctive value judgments [...] of those facts, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of 'I'"

So here we have another distinction... and the latter seems to be the one you consider to be rooted in how you construe "I"... so the subjective/subjunctive value judgements. Is that what you're looking for? The value judgements? Is my response about what I would do as a Buddhist not a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? Is the quote from the link a subjective/subjunctive value judgement? It's certainly a statement about what Buddhists consider moral, whereas my statement about what I would do reads more like a fact (though I wouldn't quite call it that). So is this why the quote you posted is more relevant to how you construe "I" than my response?

Well, if that's the case, then I suppose your response isn't quite that irrelevant, but you see how much guesswork you put me through? And really, one can tie your response into any question one poses, given enough obscurity and convoluted wording, so I'm not so sure this isn't a Rorschach test I'm using to contrive answers to my own question.


But: The part about abortion and capital punishment is now gone. And the part that is of interest to me...comparing and contrasting the components of religion with the components of my own moral philosophy with the components of yours...as they are applicable existential to conflicting goods out in the world that we live in is, in turn, no where to be seen in your own "analysis" above.

If this sort of exchange is more your preference folks like Karpel Tunnel will be more than happy to accommodate you.

iambiguous wrote:And again, whether someone answers a question of this kind to your own satisfaction is no less a judgment call rooted in your own subjective assessment of the exchange. All I can do is react subjectively in turn.


gib wrote: I'll chalk this up to mean I can never be sure that you didn't answer my question or you did but in a way that I'm not able to interpret as an answer. My judgement call here is to say you didn't.


What "kind" of question pertaining to what actual context? As that pertains to "getting" Buddhism such that we either are able to substantiate our answers as true objectively for all of us or we are not.

What else is there for the lot of us? In other words, for all practical purposes? My aim here is bring whatever questions and answers that any of us provide down out of the clouds. Sure, spend as much time as you wish grasping the technical, epistemological parameters of serious philosophy. But sooner or later you are going to be asked by me to integrate these intellectual contraptions into the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Given a particular set of circumstances. It's not a question [for me] of who either is or is not "responding" as opposed to "reacting", but responding or reacting to what set of behaviors that are in conflict given conflicting sets of assumptions regarding either a God or a No God world.


gib wrote: : Well, that's where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I'm pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer's actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. <-- In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions.


iambiguous wrote: No, the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred.


gib wrote: But isn't that what I gave you? Didn't I say that I would react to the murderer by trying to alleviate as much suffering as I can--both on the part of the murder and his family, and on the part of the victim and his family? The only thing I left out is what I, as this Buddhist character, think of the murderer's actions morally speaking--but that alone is more or less what I said it is--an assessment of the act of murder in moral terms, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over--which you said is not the reaction your looking for.


iambiguous wrote: But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others given the gap between how they do react subjectively to your behavior and how any particular Buddhist reacts given his or her own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Then given the gap between the extent to which philosophers can establish how one is obligated to react given intellectual contraptions like Kant's.


gib wrote: Do you see what you did there? You contradicted yourself. You need to follow the argument. At first, you responded by giving what it is you're looking for: "the response I am looking for in what "I" construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context..." Then when I responded saying that this is what I gave you, you responded with: "But however you react in any particular situation involving a murder involving value judgments is in turn going to be judged by others..." Essentially, you just said the answer your looking for is going to be judged by others [given the gap between, yada, yada, yada...]. The answer you're looking for will end up not being the answer your looking for... but I think we all know that.


No, the arguments themselves have to revolve around an actual murder. A murder most of us are likely to be familiar with. One of these for example: https://allthatsinteresting.com/famous-murders

Let's focus the discussion in on one of them. How, given the parameters of my moral philosophy, do I react/respond to the events here. As opposed to how you might react/respond the same or differently.

How about the Tate–LaBianca murders? Here those who did the killing were captured, tried and punished. Take your assessment of me above there. And, if there are any Buddhists in the audience here, they can react/respond insofar as the actual murders fit into the components of their own religious path.

iambiguous wrote:...it's just another reminder of how we have come to understand "I" in particular contexts differently.


gib wrote: I really need to get a grasp of how you understand "I"--it seems to figure into everything you inquire into--but *sigh* you're not in the business of helping others understand your point.


I make that attempt here on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

The points in the OP in particular. Read them and note how given a particular context your don't think like this at all regarding your own sense of self. Then the distinction I make between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

iambiguous wrote:It's not the assessments themselves that interest me, but the extent to which assessments of this sort are rooted in my own understanding of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The philosophical "hole" down in which my own "I" remains largely "fractured and fragmented".


gib wrote: Well, that certainly fits the pattern I've seen in your responses--always trying to illuminate the "other direction" one might have gone when they give you the direction they did go.


The explanation for that is encompassed in the OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

iambiguous wrote:That film is based on an actual true story. And if, after watching it, someone is still unable to grasp how what "we think, say and do" is profoundly embedded in dasein, well, we can keep plugging away at it in exchanges like this or they devolve into Kids like Wendy and her ilk or Stooges like Curly and his ilk.


gib wrote: I've never really denied that--that it's all rooted in something like your "dasein"--but I guess I just don't abhor it as much as you do.


My guess: that's almost certainly rooted in dasein.
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: 37171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:26 pm

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

In the May 2018 issue of Lion’s Roar, I wrote about the contemporary study of reincarnation, led by psychiatrist Jim Tucker at the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies. Tucker isn’t concerned with spirituality. He uses rigorous scientific methods to investigate cases in which children seem to recall past lives, and -- https://www.lionsroar.com/do-you-only-live-once/ --he has found some remarkable examples.


Clearly, to the extent that science does become interested in exploring the possibility of "past lives", I'm all for it. I'm less like the James Randis of the world who seem to take more interest in scoffing at things such as this than in taking them seriously. But how much of what is related in the accounts noted in the link above really in the vicinity of definitive proof of past lives.

And I ask from the perspective of someone who very much wants believe that, after death, it's not all just "oblivion"...the obliterated "I".

Even more remarkable than the individual cases, though, are the insights that can be gleaned when the cases are examined en masse. Tucker and his colleagues have collected thousands of cases and coded them into a computer database for statistical analysis, and they’ve started to draw some fascinating conclusions.


Okay, but here my reaction to anything of this magnitude is always the same. If they were really on to something here, and if the cumulative evidence "en masse" was sufficient, would not this be Big News? Wouldn't all of the media around the globe be drawn to it? I mean, actual substantive proof of life before and beyond the grave? Where are the front page headlines, where are television specials, where are the probing documentaries?

Isn't this something that millions and millions of us do want to believe is true? Wouldn't everyone be glued to accounts able to actually establish it? Or least lead us to believe a demonstration is within our reach?

Only, to my knowledge, there is nothing like that at all. So, for those among us who do believe it is true, how do you explain this? How wide is the gap between the anecdotes and the hard evidence?

It might be amiss to think that the Buddhist view can or should affirm the Western academic view, or vice versa. There’s also an important distinction between the two. Tucker’s team focuses on reincarnation, which generally implies the existence of a soul that transmigrates from body to body. The Buddhist view of “non-self” rejects the existence of an essential soul, instead positing that we are an ever-changing collection of phenomena that create the illusion of a self. (For more, see our collection of Buddhist teachings on the concept of rebirth.)


My own interest here isn't in whether Buddhists affirm the Western academic view, but the extent to which they can in fact demonstrate that reincarnation is, well, demonstrable. I'd be willing to settle for demonstrable proof that souls exist, regardless of where they end up after death. A "non-self" with an essential soul? How have they come to believe this much beyond believing it is true in their head? And acknowledging that there are any number of things thought through faith to be true in regard to religion...if for no other reason that psychologically many want them to be true.

I know that I do. Otherwise all that's left is what I do believe is true "in my head" here and now. No soul, no teleological font into which "I" can be embedded, no life after death.
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: 37171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:13 pm

ah
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users