Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 08:18am PT
|
I call it wanting a hamburger at the hotdog stand. It is classic delusion.
Attributable to the great teacher of financial irresponsibility J. Wellington Wimpy.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 09:52am PT
|
This idea of purpose in evolution and existence seems self-evident. Natural in the universe is an apparent will to life. If not, then why and how does life exist? If you say by accident then you’re ignoring the fact that life must be a natural artifact of the universe itself as all things in existence must be. And what is this will to live and continue to live at least until reproduction if not a purpose or purposeful thing, that purpose a natural artifact of the structure and laws of the physical universe?
If you don’t believe in a creating deity or some sort of overseeing entity and an end that that deity purposefully envisions, then what about the purpose and meaning that humanity itself instills in life? There are ends and means and if you don’t accept a deity with ends in mind consider the means of existence in which we humans create meaning and purpose for ourselves on a daily basis. Whether it’s making it to the next bolt or writing a play, humanity is constantly creating purpose and meaning in life. And an eternal existence in this sense does not add meaning to our lives, as that meaning is our own creation for us in the moment in which the validation of eternity is not necessary. Shakespeare does not require eternity to be meaningful. Progress toward an understanding and a reconciliation to despair, as well as an antidote for the emptiness of existence seems as natural as the progress toward the sustaining and continuance of life itself.
Meaning, progress, purpose...yes.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
Evolution It is not about making progress
I think that's the basic split on this thread. The pragmatic scientists tell us there's no purpose, no free will, no point really to anything in the universe except to do what gives you pleasure while you can.
The idealistic humanists, meditators and artists say that may have been true in the past, but it can be changed. Humans have the ability to alter themselves and their environment, affecting all life on earth, and should be thinking about ways to do that positively.
We are in a race against time. We can just let this play out and keep on using up our resources, polluting our planet and using weapons of mass destruction on each other or we can decide to try to stop those activities, save what is left, and encourage the best in humankind in a more equitable relationship to ourselves and nature.
Yes, the sun is going to burn out someday but that's a long time from now and it's even feasible that we might have the means to go elsewhere by then if we don't destroy our planet and ourselves in the next couple of hundred years.
We might have our world destroyed before then by a collision with something in space. Luck plays a role in evolution to. Not doing anything because that might happen seems to me an easy out for those already in positions of privilege.
Scientists are interested in what is here and now and how it works. Idealists and visionaries are interested in human potential and what it could be. Humanity needs both. The idea of molding the future is anti evolutionary in the old sense of just reproducing and waiting to see who survives. However, humans have already been altering their own physical evolution and the fate of the plant and animal world for at least the past half million years and probably longer.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 22, 2016 - 01:46pm PT
|
These are great talking points.
The business of emptiness is a large business.
As Paul says, emptiness is union, and most of all it's union of opposites. When no thing is seen to have independent nature, there there is just the one. And the one is form but that form is empty. And that's just the start of it.
In my experience all contemplation and directed thought has an element of seeking meaning, and the aim of meditation is to encounter what is true about your life and who we are as human beings with an internal life - basically, what is this life and who am I. The fruit of this quest is a secret sauce that might seem to have little bearing on humanity but that secret sauce is what makes the world go around. Take that out of the equation and we're all just biding time.
And I went back and reread Ed's "theory of mind" when I had more than a minute and found it very well-constructed and logical and linear. But the thing is, in using his poker metaphor, the way Ed has set it up provides no evidence of mind in the way I am using it - as a first person phenomenon redolent of subjective
experience and self awareness - rather it admits only a theory of brain. If properly programmed, the poker players could just as well be determined machines (which is all that materialism can ever see), where as those are not people but brains playing poker and Ed's theory is based on what is basically an elaborate Turing test per stimulus and responses that could be drawn up as entirely mechanical. Nothing in any of the moves implies self consciousness or an internal life or mind or knowing - all of this is "known" by a third party only by inference and by projecting our own inner life on others.
From the third person vantage, there IS no mind, there's only data processing. But as mentioned, there also is no third person vantage. Only a first person pov for one and all.
If we had a mind in there it would submarine the belief that nothing is greater than the sum of its parts. And if you can't find it in the parts, then it simply ain't there. Ergo, no mind.
Makes sense - from a provisional 3rd person vantage.
JL
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
As for my own experience, in my particular schools of meditation (Yogananda's version of Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism), there is such a strong emphasis on compassion and donating any fruits of meditation to the benefit of others, that I am surprised Zen does not seem to mention this.
Jan, I've been reading about Buddhism off and on for quite a while. A friend brought over a book called "Buddha" by Deepak Chopra the other day. He wrote three books that were related. One called "Muhammed," one called "Jesus," and one called "Buddha." I read the one on Muhammed and thought it was too touchy feely. You get a much better feeling for Muhammed if you just read the Koran, which isn't a tough book to read, like parts of the Bible are.
The best book was "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh. From the Vietnamese school of Buddhism. It is pretty straightforward, but I just don't get the Zen guys. I dunno if they have ever mentioned the words suffering and compassion in their posts, and we all know that Largo likes to toss in his insults. I don't get where he is coming from. I surely don't.
The notion of suffering and compassion are so clear and up front. I never hear that from our resident meditators. I'm not sure if they are even Buddhists, or are just trying to train their minds for their own pleasure and experience, which is NOT the main theme of Buddhism. Yes, Siddhārtha Gautama did meditate in his path to enlightenment, but without compassion or empathy, I don't see how our guys are gonna get there.
So, Largo, MikeL, and PSP. Are you guys Buddhists or are you meditators? Are you seeking enlightenment?
I recall the line from The Razor's Edge: "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard," and that sentence is from a verse in the Katha Upanishad.
I've always been interested in Buddhism for several reasons. First, its moral message is beautiful. Second, it does not require faith or belief. There is no magic or fairy dust in Buddhism. Siddhartha was a man, not a God. So it has seemed to me a good way of treating each other.
Look at Bhutan. They are all Buddhists. They have only recently allowed significant influence from the outside world. They are also arguably the happiest bunch of people on the planet. I'd like to go there, but I know that it isn't easy.
Anyway, I've never seen any conflict between religion and science in Buddhism. Nothing like the one which Largo has been on a mission to show.
I'm glad that you mentioned compassion. It is perhaps THE single theme in Buddhism, or at least that is my take. Empathy and Compassion. Both wonderful qualities.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 03:03pm PT
|
The pragmatic scientists tell us there's no purpose
As a pragmatic idealist I acknowledge that there is no purpose we can all agree on.
However, life makes demands on us that we obey without needing to understand.
Which could be seen as purpose.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 03:05pm PT
|
To obey without understanding makes one into a sterile mundane robot.
Even a simple blade of grass understands .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 04:22pm PT
|
Base: I never hear that from our resident meditators. I'm not sure if they are even Buddhists, or are just trying to train their minds for their own pleasure and experience, which is NOT the main theme of Buddhism. Yes, Siddhārtha Gautama did meditate in his path to enlightenment, but without compassion or empathy, I don't see how our guys are gonna get there.
None of this really matters. But it’s something that people want or expect from the views they hold of life, of what they expect from their spiritual paths, from whatever they devote their lives to. They want meaning. They require values. They want priorities and hierarchies. They expect the world to become a better place. They want to be better people. (It’s a bit naive because all of that is present, and always has been [sic].)
The situation as it really is, is almost impossible to explain. In truth, the scientism folks agree with the most accomlished masters. Nothing matters except what you think, what you feel, what you project. And those are your obstacles, your obscurations, your attachments, your aversions, your karma. You are your project-in-the-making. Good luck.
In Tantra (a technique), passions, glitches, and what would normally seem to be defective behaviors or qualities provide the path to one’s final liberation.
Find a passion that is dear to you (e.g., pride, jealousy, sloth), and review it . . . get into it. Feel the chemistry of it course through your veins. Give in to every ugly selfish interpretation it brings to your mind. Dwell in the feeling, that misery, the emotion. Got it? Ok, Good. Now just look at it. Try to get a handle on its shape, its size, its essence. Don’t reject the feeling or the vision of it. Look to see where that emotion or feeling came from. Where does it reside when you’re in it? When it leaves, where does it go? Everyone who has ever undertaken the process fully finds that the vision of that emotion or feeling is empty and ungraspable. Such passions are mirror-like awareness themselves. They are discriminating awareness. If you intuit the very nature of your passions, emotional defilements become primal awareness. You will see what they are. What they are, is empty. They are ungraspable.
How tragic it is into spend one’s entire life searching for something in a place where it is inconceivable that one finds it. Once you have understood your poisons as emptiness, you can avoid pursuing your passions the moment they arise, you can relax into your own nature, into the nature of mind, and the emotions will self-liberate. Simultaneous arising and release of passions will be automatic. They come and they will go. No bother. It’s like watching a train go by at a RR crossing.
“The greater the passion and the greater the intensity of discursive thought, the greater the dharmakaya.” Purpose? Everything is here and now.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 05:38pm PT
|
I think that's the basic split on this thread. The pragmatic scientists tell us there's no purpose, no free will, no point really to anything in the universe except to do what gives you pleasure while you can.
I gotta say, like DMT, this one doesn't sit with me very well. I really don't think that you are getting it, Jan. You wouldn't say this if you did.
As for purpose, what would you want instead, a master puppeteer -- a master plan? What you are not getting is the beauty of it all. It would be ugly if there really were a puppeteer or a purpose. Instead, it's open ended. Our future lies in the hands of our genes, our histories, our cultural "evolution" and our ever-novel world, It is inherently unpredictable even if your behavior at any instant in time is more-or-less predictable. So what? This knowledge can only lead to turning away from beliefs based only on belief and not reason.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
|
It would be ugly if there really were a puppeteer or a purpose.
That means you hate/hated your father and mother .......
And I know 100% you'll never understand what that means right now.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 05:42pm PT
|
You're batting .500 (just kidding, Dad).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 07:44pm PT
|
when I read one of Largo's well penned stories, I'm looking at pages of words built out of letters, ink on paper... where's the story?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2016 - 08:39pm PT
|
The pragmatic scientists tell us there's no purpose, no free will, no point really to anything in the universe except to do what gives you pleasure while you can (Jan)
The pragmatic scientists are too busy trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe to advise a hedonistic path be taken. Truly a strange statement.
When no thing is seen to have independent nature, there there is just the one. And the one is form but that form is empty. And that's just the start of it (JL)
I suppose at a humanistic level it is not unwise to feel we are all connected and to harm another is to harm one's self. But arising from a history of Hilbert spaces and quantum flux I think this may be a metaphysical pronouncement that there is no distinction between objects. If I am wrong please show me the error of my ways.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 08:06am PT
|
The pragmatic scientists are too busy trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe
If that were true then you'd be done a long time ago.
Instead they shoot themselves in the foot perpetually with their stoopid stubborn fixation on only western gross materialism.
Wasting everyone's hard earned money mental speculating and building defective stoopid machines that make everyone else even more stoopid
all as masquarading as advancement in intelligence ....
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 09:45am PT
|
This guy said much the same, Werner.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 09:54am PT
|
Jgill: I suppose at a humanistic level it is not unwise to feel we are all connected and to harm another is to harm one's self.
Not even about being human; not about any conventional notion of wisdom; not about folks being connected. You are THAT, and THAT is emptiness. When you begin to see it, then you cannot help to feel compassion rising up in experience for those who are shoulder deep in delusion. What can one really do for another? Everything is “an inside job.”
. . . arising from a history of Hilbert spaces and quantum flux I think this may be a metaphysical pronouncement that there is no distinction between objects. If I am wrong please show me the error of my ways.
You either see it or you don’t. There's no explaining of it.
It’s said that everything is of “one taste.” Although everything looks to be different (and maybe even unique), they are indeed the same. Everything is just phenomena or noumena, in either instance a display that is perceived by mind. That display is not substantive. Looked at closely, any phenomenon or noumenon will be found to be empty. That’s the “one taste.” That “one taste” is how objects cannot be distinguished from one another.
This is pretty esoteric stuff—but stuff that anyone can see if they only look for themselves . . . carefully, systematically, without conceptualization, without the discursive mind chattering away.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 23, 2016 - 10:04am PT
|
when I read one of Largo's well penned stories, I'm looking at pages of words built out of letters, ink on paper... where's the story
-
I think that when viewed from without, when we are trying to objectify words built out of letters (parts) and "find" a story therein, it's like looking at the brain and expecting to discover a material thing called "sentience" or awareness, and finding none in the neurons, we conclude that there is no such "thing." I'm reminded of the old turn, "There are six rules (quantifications) to writing a good story, but no one knows that they are."
An interesting issue here is what Hemmingway said about stories, that the key to good ones was to suppress information, and relate experience. Not easy, especially when you avoid windy landscape descriptions and steer clear of any commentary. Just serve the story up neat.
In my mind, an existing "story" is the interface of several factors. First you start with the black marks on the page. You have to have those. Next, you have to have a brain to crunch the data, giving the black marks significance in terms of a living person. And of course you need consciousness to ingress all this so the host (1st person) can have an experience - and that experience is "the story," a quintessential "no thing."
One can say, well, the story is reducible to the marks on the page, which sources the story. But in fact that fails to recognize the consciousness that originally cooked up the black marks which were drawn from experience.
We could keep fighting and say that the experience was stored in the brain so the brain sourced the experiences, then conclude that the brain actually wrote the story. But anyone familiar with the writing process knows that without the ability to direct your attention to what geysers up from the brain (a million options for every line in a story), you'd never be able to cull a story from the geyser. And that's just the first draft. The story is actually made in the editing.
They key here is that you can't separate out one aspect from the whole and say: That's the story. All factors are involved and none of them are either object or mind independent.
Another crucial factor is to recognize that if a machine was to write a story, it wouldn't be doing so from a first person, experiential conscious perspective because so far as we can tell, machines don't have an interior or experiential life.
A machine senses data, runs the data, and outputs a response. It does not have an internal response to the data. And most importantly, noting the qualitative difference between a sensor in a machine and sentience, if you wanted to ascribe "experience" to a machine, the only source of that experience would be the data itself, whereas in us humans, experience does not draw solely from the data and objects of reality, but also and principally from the phenomenon of BEING conscious.
That's always at the heart of every story: The sense that what is being related is not just data, but the experience of being conscious during the bombardment of data in our field or awareness. When you side with the data, that's called journalism. When you side with the sense of conscious experience - of not just the data, but of consciousness itself - that's called literature. And I think this so one of several reasons that literature is so hard to quantify, because it is not so easily nailed down to things and forms.
Just a few thoughts on a slippery subject...
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 10:22am PT
|
Thanks to live streaming, I just saw the Dalai Lama's talk this morning at the University of Colorado.
He opened it by saying, "Compassion alone is not enough. We must put it into action.
We must act on ourselves to clear our own obstructions and we must also act in a social sense".
He also said, "I never try to propagate Buddhism. Shakya Buddha also said, unless requested one should not propagate one's religion".
On the topic of doctrinal differences he made this comment on emptiness. " I was once asked about emptiness by a Catholic monk and I told him, "Don't ask that, it's not your business". He then added, "I did not want to undermine his theistic faith".
Another comment in vintage Dalai style, "If my philosophical views today are uncomfortable for you, better you just go to sleep".
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 11:55am PT
|
Great comments by the Dalai, Jan. Thanks.
You are THAT, and THAT is emptiness. When you begin to see it, then you cannot help to feel compassion rising up in experience for those who are shoulder deep in delusion (MikeL)
It's too bad that Nobel Award scientists are "shoulder deep in delusion" as they toil away.
These chats are entertaining, but it's obvious that the two camps here are from different worlds. Nevertheless it's fun talking to the Martians.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 12:58pm PT
|
It's hard to get certain items up here on mars so if you come visit could you bring some balsamic vinegar , and some good sun screen.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!