Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 03:21pm PT
|
This bit gets me excited...
Twenty percent of Americans describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Although the claim seems to annoy believers and atheists equally, separating spirituality from religion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is to assert two important truths simultaneously: Our world is dangerously riven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn, and yet there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit. One purpose of this book is to give both these convictions intellectual and empirical support.
I hope it proves substantive. I'm going to be looking for substance.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
|
And bodacious titties. I like those.
I prefer 'spirited but not religious'.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 03:48pm PT
|
Here's an eg why so many of us are Harris fans...
"For many years, I have been a vocal critic of religion, and I won’t ride the same hobbyhorse here. I hope that I have been sufficiently energetic on this front that even my most skeptical readers will trust that my bullshit detector remains well calibrated as we advance over this new terrain. Perhaps the following assurance can suffice for the moment: Nothing in this book needs to be accepted on faith. Although my focus is on human subjectivity—I am, after all, talking about the nature of experience itself—all my assertions can be tested in the laboratory of your own life. In fact, my goal is to encourage you to do just that."
.....
"A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism and from the lives of most of the people I meet."
.....
And bodacious titties. I like those.
Good to read that, T. I was beginning to wonder if you were that "sexless amoeba" lol! referenced earlier. Instead of the very healthy, very sexual being you otherwise are.
.....
jaggoff losers who harass women
jaggoff losers - there but for the Grace go I
who harass women - a very subjective thing, I'd say, to be so sure about
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 03:54pm PT
|
Project less, f*#k more.
It's OK to 'proj', though.
That I don't like jaggoff losers who harass women, the innernut equivalent of your standard aggressive barfly, does not equate to being PC - short supply there.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
|
. . . which presumes that there is a "true nature." this is a supposition, the supposition that such a thing exists might have larger consequences. what would those be, and can we say anything about them (Ed)
Good point, Ed. I would think one's true nature if it exists is an artifact and one of savagery designed for survival in an ancient and violent world. The existence of the illusory "I" in such circumstances would be a handicap, detracting from primal reflexes and instinct. Automata would be better suited for those tasks.
Buddha nature or enlightenment are part of the Buddhist religion and devotees are taught that this state of mind is "true nature". This is a religious concept and there is no rational assurance it is "true". Mike would say nothing is true.
A reasoned excursion into the conjecture of true nature might shed light on free will.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 06:54pm PT
|
What would a model of reality look like if we found phenomenon that were not "produced" by prior physical forces or influences?
not sure what you are asking here, but just a strange take on it. When we have a model of reality that we find out later is not a correct model, how do we know?
when we find a phenomena that is not predicted by our models, how do we establish whether or not they are "produced" by "prior physical forces or influences"?
both of these things happen all the time in science, it is not an unusual occurrence to be confronted by these puzzles.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:38pm PT
|
True Nature implies a False Nature. If most of us manifest our False Nature most of the time, what makes our True Nature more true?
True Nature also seems to be a relatively static concept. Can we really be separated from our dynamic surroundings? Such a condition doesn't seem natural or 'true'. After all, we evolved to live in this world.
For most people, the question isn't "what is my true nature", but rather, "when do I feel most alive?"
While the former indicates a one size fits all answer, the latter requires an answer unique to each individual. This is more interesting and relevant to me.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:47pm PT
|
Two beers with this post!
JGill said "Good point, Ed. I would think one's true nature if it exists is an artifact and one of savagery designed for survival in an ancient and violent world. The existence of the illusory "I" in such circumstances would be a handicap, detracting from primal reflexes and instinct. Automata would be better suited for those tasks.
Buddha nature or enlightenment are part of the Buddhist religion and devotees are taught that this state of mind is "true nature". This is a religious concept and there is no rational assurance it is "true". Mike would say nothing is true.
A reasoned excursion into the conjecture of true nature might shed light on free will."
The key words I noticed in this statement are "I would think" and "conjecture" . This would fall into philosiphying about true nature.
True nature is your direct experience without attachment to "I". Completely letting go of your opinions, situation and condition and experiencing the moment. What ever it is. Unbiased observation.
A zen master used to say "your true self is always shining and free; Humans beings make something and enter the realm of suffering" Making something is attachment to I me my.
To experience your "true nature" is an extremely confident experience because there is very little "I" to be insecure about. You are basically available (with very little distraction)to observe and experience and act.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:43am PT
|
re: free will and free solo
So awhile ago I was climbing a stout overhang alone and not on aid. I was free soloing. Right? Of course I was protected but nonetheless I was free soloing. Just goes to show we can have our own semantic problems right here in our own sport. This example, I think, also shows how most of us can sort it out and make sense of the meaning, otherwise mess, despite the language or semantics, and thus avoid argument too, when we have a good mental grasp of what is.
So here is "free solo" in one sense but not in another. Likewise, language what it is, there is "free will" in one sense but not in another.
"Free" of aid(ing) is one thing, "free" of pro another. Seems to me, with this analogy or comparison to "free solo" in the mental tool kit, climbers should have a leg up, for those who want it, on coming to terms with "free will" easier and sooner than most.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 10:59am PT
|
when we find a phenomena that is not predicted by our models, how do we establish whether or not they are "produced" by "prior physical forces or influences"?
both of these things happen all the time in science, it is not an unusual occurrence to be confronted by these puzzles.
Is it reasonable to say that a basic axiom of modern scientific endeavor, the beginning leap of faith upon which the scientific method rests, is that EVERYTHING is a consequence of some physical force or influence? If we have a model of reality that does not account for some observation, then we assume that our model is inadequate to explain the observation, and adjust the model to account for the new information, rather than assuming something occurred in the absence of prior forces or influences? This seems to strike right at the heart of the distinction between science and religion.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
...within our information horizon, that is.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 11:07am PT
|
I'm interested in what's going on with quantum entanglement. That one does seem strange.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
|
The key words I noticed in this statement are "I would think" and "conjecture" . This would fall into philosiphying about true nature (PSP)
Those two expressions are starting points for scientific inquiry, not the meaningless babble of philosophy, and scientific exploration is what I intended.
It would appear that those attracted to Zen have a real need to subdue "I". That's unfortunate.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
|
JGill said "It would appear that those attracted to Zen have a real need to subdue "I". That's unfortunate."
OK I will bite that hook. lol .
I think it is semantics thing again. Rather than saying subdue "I" it would be more correct to say observe or perceive "I". and as far as that being unfortunate ; i think I have explained why Zen practitioners are observing "I" because "I" is the root of greed, anger and ignorance . When you are attached to "I" then greed anger and ingnorance run the show and life is a mess of great suffering. When you become less attached to "I" and can observe it from a distance you then have a choice (free will?) do i make this situation better or worse? ie being conscious of your actions and thoughts feelings and emotions.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 02:59pm PT
|
Without the I, there is no you, and "us".
exactly!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 22, 2014 - 03:36pm PT
|
"True Nature" is a tricky concept if you have never done any prolonged, empirical self-evaluation. You're basically working from your genetic psychological makeup and your conditioning and trying to logically sort out what this means. But true nature in an esoteric sense is much more basic than all of our inherited leanings, and can better be understood as basic nature.
We can all get a sense for what this is by looking at the diversity of human beings. We come in all colors and sizes, speak many different languages, follow many different creeds and avenues, eat all kinds of different grub, but under all of this is a basic human layer that we all have in common. Beneath this is an existential layer of being, sans "I" that is more basic still. As you keep dropping, you keep going deeper till mind and body drop away and you are in "no thing." This is not the mind encountering some state or projecting/imagining some supposition, which is the discursive desperately trying to evaluate some thing. This is where Dingus gets let behind because this no thing cannot be "known" in the normal sense of the word.
As mentioned 100 times, much of this hinges on how you focus your mind. If you go with narrow focus on things, you will believe exactly as Dingus believes - that all of reality can be measured. If you can hold an open focus long enough - and nobody that was ever born can do so without practice - the other side of the discursive will eventually be encountered. the start of this is the "I" dropping away. The rest is just staying on the path, and not getting distracted by content and woo.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
|
The Wooists object to science because the discipline seeks to close the very door that leads to their existence.
That is a total crock of sh!t.
You're making sh!t up in your head and projecting that onto the world outside of you again.
The gross materialists only study the science of material nature.
The spiritual path studies both the science of material nature and the science of self realization simultaneously .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
|
When you are attached to "I" then greed anger and ignorance run the show and life is a mess of great suffering (PSP)
I suspect this is straight out of a Zen manual. So, in normal life when engaged in conflict, the Zen practitioner is able to put aside "I" and deal with problems in a calm and measured manner, applying reason instead of emotion? Oh wait, that means one applies the discursive mind by foregoing the discursive mind. Is this a koan?
It seems that putting aside the "I" leads to "basic nature" which then drains into nothingness, somehow an ideal state. But in the realm of emptiness one must be in a secure environment, helpless and guarded against injury that might be inflicted by others whose "I"s are less refined and more brutal.
Another time "I" is set aside is during a sports performance when the athlete reacts with instinct or prior programming, approaching the biological automaton we are in reality. Or in violent confrontations as in war, perhaps immersed in a murderous spree.
It would appear that setting aside one's "I" is a mixed bag.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 05:54pm PT
|
If you can hold an open focus long enough - and nobody that was ever born can do so without practice (JL)
What support do you have for that statement?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!