Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 11, 2018, 11:39:53 AM
-
Interesting article based around the work of Derek Parfitt. The 'republic of entities' currently writing this post wonders, following on from a couple of posts with torridon on the SfG thread, whether some of what people state is based on what it feels to be them, and that this experience is not as uniform as we tend to think.
https://quillette.com/2018/08/07/is-there-anybody-in-there-derek-parfits-criticism-of-the-self/
-
I don't know why people are getting into such a tizzy about the Self. It is YOU.
The more one analyses it or thinks about it the less we are likely to know it.
When all objective thinking, all analysis, all memory, even all awareness stops and only the Subject exists, that is the Self.
-
Not in a tizzy at all. Info thinnest saying that you know about something by not analysing though is a meaningless deepity.
-
I don't know why people are getting into such a tizzy about the Self. It is YOU.
The more one analyses it or thinks about it the less we are likely to know it.
When all objective thinking, all analysis, all memory, even all awareness stops and only the Subject exists, that is the Self.
That says nothing about what it is, only what it isn't.
Can you say what it is, what is its nature, location, substance, form ?
If I have a head transplant, will my self go with my brain into the new body ?
-
I like the phrase, republic of entities. A friend of mine used to write stuff about the self as group, although this relates more to sub-personalities, and the idea that there isn't a single point of awareness. I used to also use the idea of a theatre or arena, in which various entities take up space, and seem to comprise me. This was anticipated by Freud with his ego, superego, id, split. But is there one me? I don't know.
-
That says nothing about what it is, only what it isn't.
Can you say what it is, what is its nature, location, substance, form ?
If I have a head transplant, will my self go with my brain into the new body ?
The Self is You. The intellect is a tool you use to understand external objects. It cannot know you. You can only BE you.
The idea of Self Realization is about eliminating all the things that we falsely identify as 'I'. all these are in fact only qualities of the body or the mind or intellect. By eliminating them we can SUBJECTIVELY KNOW our true self.
This is the most fulfilling task one can undertake....I know from my own experience.
-
Just like I am suspicious of moral relativists who also prescribe moral behaviours I am suspicious of illusion of self proponents who write in the first person.
-
Just like I am suspicious of moral relativists who also prescribe moral behaviours I am suspicious of illusion of self proponents who write in the first person.
I am suspicious if people who are suspicious of others.
-
The Self is You. The intellect is a tool you use to understand external objects. It cannot know you. You can only BE you.
The idea of Self Realization is about eliminating all the things that we falsely identify as 'I'. all these are in fact only qualities of the body or the mind or intellect. By eliminating them we can SUBJECTIVELY KNOW our true self...
Still only saying what it isn't, not saying what it is.
Is it a thing, if so what is its nature and what is the evidence to justify that ?
-
What is a thing? Is an idea a "thing"?
-
Still only saying what it isn't, not saying what it is.
Is it a thing, if so what is its nature and what is the evidence to justify that ?
You are in this trap of 'externalizing'. The Ego, mind and intellect work that way. You keep asking 'what is it'...as though it is some substance that you can analyse and understand. The intellect works that way.
I have told you that you cannot see it or feel it or analyse it because it is not external to you. It is you! You have to just BE you!
This is not something you can 'understand'. You must first get into the Yogic process and try to understand your own internal structure (mental). You will then get an idea of what I am saying.
-
You are in this trap of 'externalizing'. The Ego, mind and intellect work that way. You keep asking 'what is it'...as though it is some substance that you can analyse and understand. The intellect works that way.
I have told you that you cannot see it or feel it or analyse it because it is not external to you. It is you! You have to just BE you!
This is not something you can 'understand'. You must first get into the Yogic process and try to understand your own internal structure (mental). You will then get an idea of what I am saying.
I can see this is going nowhere, I'm not going to have to the time to start doing Yoga just to clarify a point in a messageboard debate.
-
I can see this is going nowhere, I'm not going to have to the time to start doing Yoga just to clarify a point in a messageboard debate.
Yes..I agree with that. But you can try to understand that it isn't as simple as asking 'what is it'?
-
For what it is worth, I see my 'self' as a phenomenon of mind, a mental construct, an aspect of conscious experience, a process, the feeling of personhood. Vague terms, perhaps, but the concept is inherently slippery with multiple dimensions. There is all the baggage that psychologists deal with, the entrenched personality traits, the preferences, the personal memories, all the things that typically differentiate me from Bob or Sally. Then there is the phenomenological experience of being an active subject within the world right here, right now, seeing and hearing and thinking, having direct visceral experience of the wider world, feeling alive, having emotions. All of these aspects are subject to change over time; the things that felt important to me 10 years ago are not the things that feel important now; the sounds I am hearing coming out of the radio are not the sounds I heard 10 seconds ago. And yet through all this flux of varying experience, I feel my mind weaves together a continuity and a singularity; a mental narrative of a single 'me', a me that is subject to incessant change, but always a single subject, not multiple subjects, this coinciding with the fact that whatever limbs may come and go, I always have a single body that admittedly changes over time.
-
For what it is worth, I see my 'self' as a phenomenon of mind, a mental construct, an aspect of conscious experience, a process, the feeling of personhood. Vague terms, perhaps, but the concept is inherently slippery with multiple dimensions. There is all the baggage that psychologists deal with, the entrenched personality traits, the preferences, the personal memories, all the things that typically differentiate me from Bob or Sally. Then there is the phenomenological experience of being an active subject within the world right here, right now, seeing and hearing and thinking, having direct visceral experience of the wider world, feeling alive, having emotions. All of these aspects are subject to change over time; the things that felt important to me 10 years ago are not the things that feel important now; the sounds I am hearing coming out of the radio are not the sounds I heard 10 seconds ago. And yet through all this flux of varying experience, I feel my mind weaves together a continuity and a singularity; a mental narrative of a single 'me', a me that is subject to incessant change, but always a single subject, not multiple subjects, this coinciding with the fact that whatever limbs may come and go, I always have a single body that admittedly changes over time.
Ok...For what it is worth let me also explain what I and many other spiritual people think, especially Hindus.
We believe that we have two parts to ourselves. One is the constant part that we call the Higher Self. The second is the evolving part that we call the Lower Self. The Lower Self reincarnates again and again in various bodies beginning from animals into humans and then further into more civilized and saintly humans.
At the final stage, the lower self merges with the higher self. This is normally called Self Realization when we realize or know or become the constant part. The other part disappears. This is freedom or liberation after which no more rebirth.
What is the evidence? There is plenty of evidence but only of a subjective kind. You can't examine it with a microscope or some other instrument.
Out intellect naturally objects to this because it is tuned to sense and understand only external phenomena. That is why we need to separate ourselves from the intellect and see it as only a tool. After that we will be able to introspect, work with our mind and travel within to identify the true Self.
This is what all the Yogic science, Vedanta philosophy, Jainism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Theosophy are all about.
That is as simply as I can put it. Lots of questions I am sure....but then it is a very complex subject...and no easy answers.
Ok....ippy, I know you can't resist saying something about all this. Most welcome. ;)
-
Ok...For what it is worth let me also explain what I and many other spiritual people think, especially Hindus.
We believe that we have two parts to ourselves. One is the constant part that we call the Higher Self. The second is the evolving part that we call the Lower Self. The Lower Self reincarnates again and again in various bodies beginning from animals into humans and then further into more civilized and saintly humans.
At the final stage, the lower self merges with the higher self. This is normally called Self Realization when we realize or know or become the constant part. The other part disappears. This is freedom or liberation after which no more rebirth.
What is the evidence? There is plenty of evidence but only of a subjective kind. You can't examine it with a microscope or some other instrument.
Out intellect naturally objects to this because it is tuned to sense and understand only external phenomena. That is why we need to separate ourselves from the intellect and see it as only a tool. After that we will be able to introspect, work with our mind and travel within to identify the true Self.
This is what all the Yogic science, Vedanta philosophy, Jainism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Theosophy are all about.
That is as simply as I can put it. Lots of questions I am sure....but then it is a very complex subject...and no easy answers.
Ok....ippy, I know you can't resist saying something about all this. Most welcome. ;)
That is more an exposition of Hindu beliefs than a first-principles description of the nature of personal experience. Imagine you were born into a different time and culture, never heard of Hinduism or yogic practices, you'd have to answer the question, what am I, without reference to those beliefs. We all have the experience of being alive, but we tend to describe it through the lens of whatever culture we are in.
-
Ok...For what it is worth let me also explain what I and many other spiritual people think, especially Hindus.
We believe that we have two parts to ourselves. One is the constant part that we call the Higher Self. The second is the evolving part that we call the Lower Self. The Lower Self reincarnates again and again in various bodies beginning from animals into humans and then further into more civilized and saintly humans.
At the final stage, the lower self merges with the higher self. This is normally called Self Realization when we realize or know or become the constant part. The other part disappears. This is freedom or liberation after which no more rebirth.
Which firstly, doesn't actually say what a self is, and secondly, in common with many religious ideas, is riddled with wishful thinking.
It's a nice enough story but rather trite.
What is the evidence? There is plenty of evidence but only of a subjective kind.
So, no evidence then. To be fair, evidence of exactly what a self is and how consciousness works is rather difficult to imagine. If we had a hypothesis and say it enabled us to construct a machine with consciousness and a 'self' and it acted like it did have them, would that be evidence enough?
Evidentially your big problem is that it relies on something non-physical whereas all the evidence is that a sense of self is what brains do.
Out intellect naturally objects to this because it is tuned to sense and understand only external phenomena.
Most selves are external to me.
That is why we need to separate ourselves from the intellect and see it as only a tool.
Sounds like a good excuse to peddle intellectually hopeless arguments...
-
That is more an exposition of Hindu beliefs than a first-principles description of the nature of personal experience. Imagine you were born into a different time and culture, never heard of Hinduism or yogic practices, you'd have to answer the question, what am I, without reference to those beliefs. We all have the experience of being alive, but we tend to describe it through the lens of whatever culture we are in.
Yes...I agree that it is basically a Hindu philosophy. But it is not limited to only Hindus. Hindus only happen to be the most serious and accomplished community in this area. This has become a way of life for almost everyone.
Many other esoteric branches of philosophy and mysticism also believe in the same basic process but have retained it as some kind of a secret branch of knowledge.
It is about what we experience and not about beliefs. Once we get into the process of internal analysis, it is all the same whether Hindu or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever.
-
That is more an exposition of Hindu beliefs than a first-principles description of the nature of personal experience. Imagine you were born into a different time and culture, never heard of Hinduism or yogic practices, you'd have to answer the question, what am I, without reference to those beliefs. We all have the experience of being alive, but we tend to describe it through the lens of whatever culture we are in.
I think you will find that it's a different perspective. The question can't be answered because questions come from the mind as do answers. Both are thought forms rather than the reality of the inner experience of Self with a capital 'S'. There are a variety of yoga techniques and meditation methods which are used to lead to an inner stillness so that 'Self' awareness is realised. There is no real description just analogical pointers.
-
Ok...For what it is worth let me also explain what I and many other spiritual people think, especially Hindus.
We believe that we have two parts to ourselves. One is the constant part that we call the Higher Self. The second is the evolving part that we call the Lower Self. The Lower Self reincarnates again and again in various bodies beginning from animals into humans and then further into more civilized and saintly humans.
At the final stage, the lower self merges with the higher self. This is normally called Self Realization when we realize or know or become the constant part. The other part disappears. This is freedom or liberation after which no more rebirth.
What is the evidence? There is plenty of evidence but only of a subjective kind. You can't examine it with a microscope or some other instrument.
Out intellect naturally objects to this because it is tuned to sense and understand only external phenomena. That is why we need to separate ourselves from the intellect and see it as only a tool. After that we will be able to introspect, work with our mind and travel within to identify the true Self.
This is what all the Yogic science, Vedanta philosophy, Jainism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Theosophy are all about.
That is as simply as I can put it. Lots of questions I am sure....but then it is a very complex subject...and no easy answers.
Ok....ippy, I know you can't resist saying something about all this. Most welcome. ;)
Some of those yoga positions would, well the male proponents, would enable them/you to see the bollocks intimately.
Regards ippy, see, I haven't disappointed you Sriram
-
Yes...I agree that it is basically a Hindu philosophy. But it is not limited to only Hindus. Hindus only happen to be the most serious and accomplished community in this area. This has become a way of life for almost everyone.
Many other esoteric branches of philosophy and mysticism also believe in the same basic process but have retained it as some kind of a secret branch of knowledge.
It is about what we experience and not about beliefs. Once we get into the process of internal analysis, it is all the same whether Hindu or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever.
What I am talking about are indeed in the nature of personal experiences....not beliefs. These philosophies are also not just some ancient ideas brought down by one set of 'scriptures' that are held as sacrosanct. These have been reiterated time and again over the ages up till very recent mystics and philosophers. That is the way Hinduism works.
Most Hindus of today will also vouch for the experiences and the correctness of the interpretation. As mentioned earlier, similar ideas are found in almost all traditions around the world though they may be regarded as secret teachings.
It is amazing how stubbornly insulated some of you manage to remain in spite of such wide spread awareness in today's world.
-
What I am talking about are indeed in the nature of personal experiences....not beliefs.
No, they are interpretations of experiences, so definitely beliefs.
These philosophies are also not just some ancient ideas brought down by one set of 'scriptures' that are held as sacrosanct. These have been reiterated time and again over the ages up till very recent mystics and philosophers. That is the way Hinduism works.
Most Hindus of today will also vouch for the experiences and the correctness of the interpretation. As mentioned earlier, similar ideas are found in almost all traditions around the world though they may be regarded as secret teachings.
So it's a successful meme.
It is amazing how stubbornly insulated some of you manage to remain in spite of such wide spread awareness in today's world.
The problem is that you are jumping from how things feel to totally evidence-free ideas about reincarnation and so on.
-
What I am talking about are indeed in the nature of personal experiences....not beliefs. These philosophies are also not just some ancient ideas brought down by one set of 'scriptures' that are held as sacrosanct. These have been reiterated time and again over the ages up till very recent mystics and philosophers. That is the way Hinduism works.
Most Hindus of today will also vouch for the experiences and the correctness of the interpretation. As mentioned earlier, similar ideas are found in almost all traditions around the world though they may be regarded as secret teachings.
It is amazing how stubbornly insulated some of you manage to remain in spite of such wide spread awareness in today's world.
A billion times zero will always remain zero no matter how many will it to be something other than zero!
Regards ippy
-
Yes...I agree that it is basically a Hindu philosophy. But it is not limited to only Hindus. Hindus only happen to be the most serious and accomplished community in this area. This has become a way of life for almost everyone.
Many other esoteric branches of philosophy and mysticism also believe in the same basic process but have retained it as some kind of a secret branch of knowledge.
It is about what we experience and not about beliefs. Once we get into the process of internal analysis, it is all the same whether Hindu or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever.
We don't see christians and muslims, let alone atheists, 'vouching for the correctness' of the view that the self is some reincarnated being that lived previously inside other people. I think you are muddying the distinction between belief/interpretation, and experience. I can experience nothing in my self to suggest I was once someone else; rather the opposite is the case, all aspects of my self seem derived from the particularities of this body with its particular history, and I can see nothing that is independent of these formative factors.
-
We don't see christians and muslims, let alone atheists, 'vouching for the correctness' of the view that the self is some reincarnated being that lived previously inside other people. I think you are muddying the distinction between belief/interpretation, and experience. I can experience nothing in my self to suggest I was once someone else; rather the opposite is the case, all aspects of my self seem derived from the particularities of this body with its particular history, and I can see nothing that is independent of these formative factors.
That's what the 'spiritual' transcending practices are about - ceasing to identify with the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history and identifying with the 'Self' which is revealed.
-
That's what the 'spiritual' transcending practices are about - ceasing to identify with the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history and identifying with the 'Self' which is revealed.
This seems, as does much of Sriram's posting on heter, a claim to something objectively true in that something is portrayed as a false perception, the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history', and something as true, that which is revealed. That then seems to be overlayed with statements that all of this is 'subject's while again claiming that one, or indeed large groups of people such as Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience.
This then rejects other experiences as somehow false and would seem to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, in that while creating a view that experience can establish correctness, it's only that experience that is acceptable that is defined as valid.
Further it rejects anything that might established via intersubjective methods as worthless if it contradicts that idea of 'correctness'.
-
We don't see christians and muslims, let alone atheists, 'vouching for the correctness' of the view that the self is some reincarnated being that lived previously inside other people. I think you are muddying the distinction between belief/interpretation, and experience. I can experience nothing in my self to suggest I was once someone else; rather the opposite is the case, all aspects of my self seem derived from the particularities of this body with its particular history, and I can see nothing that is independent of these formative factors.
Yes....the exoteric teachings in other traditions don't say anything about all this but the esoteric teachings do. That is why they are secret teachings.
Even within Hinduism it was not always taught to everyone. Most of the popular teachings involved mythological analogies and allegories that only indirectly hinted at the reality. In recent years it has become more popular and widespread.
There is no reason why this should not happen in other communities as well.
You cannot experience any of this in normal life. That is why this requires some special and involved methods to be followed. But then, the push or this has to come from within. If your cup is too full such that you don't feel the need to know anything more than what your senses tell you...nothing can be done.
-
Further to the above....
I was actually wrong in saying that all this cannot be experienced in normal life. It can be experienced in subtle ways, which we need to be sensitive enough to recognize. Series of such experiences will create an inner need to know more...which is what will drive us to take up more serious efforts to understand.
-
This seems, as does much of Sriram's posting on heter, a claim to something objectively true in that something is portrayed as a false perception, the 'self/ego' resulting from that karmic history', and something as true, that which is revealed. That then seems to be overlayed with statements that all of this is 'subject's while again claiming that one, or indeed large groups of people such as Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience.
This then rejects other experiences as somehow false and would seem to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, in that while creating a view that experience can establish correctness, it's only that experience that is acceptable that is defined as valid.
Further it rejects anything that might established via intersubjective methods as worthless if it contradicts that idea of 'correctness'.
I think that you are reading too much into that sentence of mine but I'll try to comment on the points you make, if I am understanding them correctly.
I don't think the 'spiritual' practices mentioned are about establishing 'something objectively true' but more about the truth or otherwise of the subject 'I'. During the process, which is often directed towards inner stillness, there is a tendency to recognise that the subjective content of what goes to make up the self/ego is a false identity. As regards 'Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience' I think what Hinduism and its derivative religions have are a variety of well established methods which is claimed to assist the initiates in discovering the 'correctness' of the experience for themselves. As the self/ego's dominance is threatened during the process there is often an inner struggle (which is what jihad really is) and there is also the danger of a superior (religious) ego supplanting the previous one.
-
I think that you are reading too much into that sentence of mine but I'll try to comment on the points you make, if I am understanding them correctly.
I don't think the 'spiritual' practices mentioned are about establishing 'something objectively true' but more about the truth or otherwise of the subject 'I'. During the process, which is often directed towards inner stillness, there is a tendency to recognise that the subjective content of what goes to make up the self/ego is a false identity. As regards 'Hindus are the most 'accomplished' at this and can vouch for the 'correctness ' of the experience' I think what Hinduism and its derivative religions have are a variety of well established methods which is claimed to assist the initiates in discovering the 'correctness' of the experience for themselves. As the self/ego's dominance is threatened during the process there is often an inner struggle (which is what jihad really is) and there is also the danger of a superior (religious) ego supplanting the previous one.
Truth is an objective not subjective claim. As are claims of correctness. The entirety of the language you presented such as 'well established methods' dresses up your statements that it is subjective in the clothes of objectivity.
-
(1) Truth is an objective not subjective claim. As are claims of correctness. (2)The entirety of the language you presented such as 'well established methods' dresses up your statements that it is subjective in the clothes of objectivity.
(1)Truth is truth and a claim is a claim. They are not identical. The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective claim or an objective 'me'.
(2)That's the nature of language in these circumstances. It has its limitations especially when trying to convey a method towards inner stillness to a mind which thrives on inner activity.
-
(1)Truth is truth and a claim is a claim. They are not identical. The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective claim or an objective 'me'.
(2)That's the nature of language in these circumstances. It has its limitations especially when trying to convey a method towards inner stillness to a mind which thrives on inner activity.
Who said they were identical? Seems to me by using such terms that is you, and to an extent Sriram.
And yes language is limited, perhaps you need to examine the confusion in your use of it? Because your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.
-
Many people still confuse religion with spirituality and personal experience with blind beliefs.
Try this ....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
-
Many people still confuse religion with spirituality and personal experience with blind beliefs.
Try this ....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
I don't have any trouble with confusing everyday feelings with religion I note whoever it was that wrote this trip over their own words article has far more problems than I have, nor is that due to me being over simplistic, most people with an average amount of intelligence can recognise the words of someone with an overworked sense of imagination.
Why would spirituality be confused with religion as religion only exists in the minds of those so inclined to want to accept it.
It's more about the difficulty people have trying to explain these feelings not that spirituality's a particularly good word to use for describing these feelings, finding the exact word is probably akin to chasing the end of a rainbow.
When relating the spiritual, (using spiritual as the right word for the moment even though it's not that precise), to others we all understand these experiences without a need for some, usually self appointed, teacher or guru to explain.
There's no need for any of us to have super brains tuned to genius like levels as is often implied by lots of exponents of this idea that have convinced themselves they have some kind of superior knowledge about these feelings, these feelings are easily understood by most of us something like you Sriram with your feelings of wonder at the new discoveries when you read about them within your science paper or magazine the one you often refer to and good for you too.
Regards ippy
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
So spirituality is basically being overly credulous and superstitious.
-
(1) Who said they were identical? Seems to me by using such terms that is you, and to an extent Sriram.
(2)And yes language is limited, perhaps you need to examine the confusion in your use of it? Because your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.
(1)You said 'Truth is an objective claim'
(2) I'm sure all of us need to seek improvement in linguistic expression. Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by 'your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.'
-
(1)You said 'Truth is an objective claim'
(2) I'm sure all of us need to seek improvement in linguistic expression. Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by 'your second point again reads as if a claim to objectivity to me.'
a claim that something is the truth, is a claim about something being objectively correct.
And I meant that your point about a 'method towards inner stillness' reads as if you are again making a claim that something is objectively true, despite your idea that it is about something subjective. It's the difference between 'I like Marmite' (subjective), and 'Marmite is good' (objective)
-
a claim that something is the truth, is a claim about something being objectively correct.
And I meant that your point about a 'method towards inner stillness' reads as if you are again making a claim that something is objectively true, despite your idea that it is about something subjective. It's the difference between 'I like Marmite' (subjective), and 'Marmite is good' (objective)
OK, using your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'. The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.
-
OK, using your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'. The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.
But that then puts certain 'experiences' as somehow more correct than others. I think the whole idea is difficult to express not only because the language is problematic but that the wooliness of the concepts is used to avoid examination.
-
OK, using your example, I'll rephrase my previous sentence to see if it makes any more sense .... The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject 'I' rather than a subjective 'like' or an objective 'Marmite'. The problem with language in these cases is that the mind will latch on to words like 'atma' and objectify them like 'Oh, I've got to look for an atma, nope, couldn't find one', which is probably why 'moksha' is stressed ... liberation form e.g. intellectual thoughts and concepts.
I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.
We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me. Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.
-
So it's a successful meme.
Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert
-
Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert...………………………….Dawkinsian pseudoscience alert
So, in the context, you would seem to be denying that some ideas spread though populations or 'catch on' and that not all such ideas catch on because they have merit? Rather paradoxically, if you disagree that a meme is a useful idea, then the fact that it is popular means that it must be an example of such an idea and wouldn't it be a good idea to have a word for it....?
ETA: Just to be clear (Sriram, take note) a meme is a general term for ideas that 'catch on', not only those without merit.
-
I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.
We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me. Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.
The point is that such personal experiences also have a degree of objectivity, in the sense that they can be shared and a common interpretation can be arrived at as also a specific technique by which they can be repeated and developed. They are not entirely personal personal experiences that are unknowable to others.
-
if you disagree that a meme is a useful idea,
And there we have it in a nutshell. A meme is an idea. In other words there are other perfectly serviceable words to use other than meme.
Are you just using it because of the weight and halo effect it's use by antitheism's patron saint, Richard Dawkins adds to it? If you are looking for a word which carries scientific clout....then I suggest 'meme' is not that word.
-
And there we have it in a nutshell. A meme is an idea. In other words there are other perfectly serviceable words to use other than meme.
No a meme isn't just an idea, it's an idea that catches on and spreads through a population.
Are you just using it because of the weight and halo effect it's use by antitheism's patron saint, Richard Dawkins adds to it?
::)
If you are looking for a word which carries scientific clout....then I suggest 'meme' is not that word.
You being the recognised expert in these matters....
-
No a meme isn't just an idea, it's an idea that catches on and spreads through a population.
As if no one had spotted that Before the sainted Dawkins, Dennett and Blackmore came on the scene.
-
I'm with NS on this one. You say what you mean is: 'The 'truth' which the methods attempt to uncover is the experiential truth of the subject '.
We all have various experiences, and we can all employ various methods. The so called 'truths' that I might come up with are first and foremost of significance to me. Someone else might come up with a totally different set of 'truths', either by using the same or other methods. The word 'truth' here seems to be misplaced or even an attempt to give certain 'spiritual' ideas a cachet which they don't necessarily deserve.
I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it. The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word. I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise. However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves. Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.
-
I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it. The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word. I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise. However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves. Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.
'Analogical' language is exactly a language based on conceptualization. The idea that there is a way of communicating anything valid and in any sense claimed to be similar without conceptualizing is flummery.
-
'Analogical' language is exactly a language based on conceptualization. The idea that there is a way of communicating anything valid and in any sense claimed to be similar without conceptualizing is flummery.
Quite so. Flummery was perhaps a good analogical word.
-
I'll try to answer both yours and NS's points together, as I understand it. The word 'truth' was put in quotes to acknowledge the inadequacy of the word. I don't think there is any attempt to deliberately promote the avoidance of examination because in this context 'examination' implies a subjective or objective experience around which a concept can be formed, whereas the methods are usually about avoiding the tendency to conceptualise. However, in order to share such an 'experience' with somebody else an analogical language is often used to provide a flavour of it, or a method is suggested for those who wish to discover it for themselves. Some people in their enthusiasm perhaps use superlatives to try to better convey the impact of their inner experience just as some do with outer experiences.
The trouble is that there can be such a wide range of attitudes and emotional interpretations towards our experiences that to say that one has achieved some inner 'truth' is really saying very little, except to oneself and people of like mind.
Consider, for instance, Wordsworth's attitude towards nature, fashioned by his childhood experiences in particular. He saw his links with nature as exhilarating, beneficent, awe inspiring and comforting experiences. Now consider Tennyson's attitude towards nature, especially in the poem 'In Memoriam'. which illustrates his doubts and fears and his confusion with a loving god and an impersonal nature. I just don't think that 'truth' is a particularly appropriate word in this context.
-
enki,
I don't think you have any serious experience of Yoga or Pranayama or meditations.
Not just in Hinduism but also in Jain and Buddhist traditions, spiritual aspirants can be guided in very specific ways to achieve very specific goals. Sometimes on a one to one basis, they can even be guided thought by thought, emotion by emotion to achieve certain mental states.
There are rarely any wide range of interpretations.....only different paths and different stages of development. Different paths and different milestones are fairly clearly understood by Yogis and other teachers.
-
enki,
I don't think you have any serious experience of Yoga or Pranayama or meditations.
Not just in Hinduism but also in Jain and Buddhist traditions, spiritual aspirants can be guided in very specific ways to achieve very specific goals. Sometimes on a one to one basis, they can even be guided thought by thought, emotion by emotion to achieve certain mental states.
There are rarely any wide range of interpretations.....only different paths and different stages of development. Different paths and different milestones are fairly clearly understood by Yogis and other teachers.
Certain types of practice can yield certain classes of mind state; that seems undeniable. I know what sort of mind state I can acheive with the help of a fine single malt whisky and good log fire. Altering our mind state can alter the way you think and see the world whilst in that state. It might be beneficial, it might not be, depending on the individual. I think we need to be cautious about grand claims of objective truth that derive mostly from altered mind states.
-
Certain types of practice can yield certain classes of mind state; that seems undeniable. I know what sort of mind state I can acheive with the help of a fine single malt whisky and good log fire. Altering our mind state can alter the way you think and see the world whilst in that state. It might be beneficial, it might not be, depending on the individual. I think we need to be cautious about grand claims of objective truth that derive mostly from altered mind states.
For a person who has never ventured into any of these areas personally, you have very strong opinions about them! Which I think is rather presumptuous.
-
For a person who has never ventured into any of these areas personally, you have very strong opinions about them! Which I think is rather presumptuous.
Oh, many is the time I've enjoyed a glass of whisky. There are many ways to derive an altered mind state; meditational practices are just one class of methods. It's a good principal to be wary of projecting personal experience onto some objective true-for-all canvas.
-
Oh, many is the time I've enjoyed a glass of whisky. There are many ways to derive an altered mind state; meditational practices are just one class of methods. It's a good principal to be wary of projecting personal experience onto some objective true-for-all canvas.
::) ::)
-
(1)The trouble is that there can be such a wide range of attitudes and emotional interpretations towards our experiences that to say that one has achieved some inner 'truth' is really saying very little, except to oneself and people of like mind.
(2)Consider, for instance, Wordsworth's attitude towards nature, fashioned by his childhood experiences in particular. He saw his links with nature as exhilarating, beneficent, awe inspiring and comforting experiences. Now consider Tennyson's attitude towards nature, especially in the poem 'In Memoriam'. which illustrates his doubts and fears and his confusion with a loving god and an impersonal nature. I just don't think that 'truth' is a particularly appropriate word in this context.
(1)Yes, I would agree with that. There are no words to describe the 'truth' of inner being and even if there were they would not impart the actuality, which is why there are ways and methods suggested to attain that end for those who have the inclination to follow them.
(2)The examples you give are their descriptions of the emotional or thoughtful active states of their minds which are relative to their external experiences. The, so called, spiritual way is centred around conscious inner stillness rather than activity, the 'truth' of which is beyond communicable description.
-
(1)Yes, I would agree with that. There are no words to describe the 'truth' of inner being and even if there were they would not impart the actuality, which is why there are ways and methods suggested to attain that end for those who have the inclination to follow them.
(2)The examples you give are their descriptions of the emotional or thoughtful active states of their minds which are relative to their external experiences. The, so called, spiritual way is centred around conscious inner stillness rather than activity, the 'truth' of which is beyond communicable description.
Hi Ekim,
I completely accept that there are various techniques which lead to or allow 'inner stillness' as you call it. I have no problem at all with that. I do feel however that many people can find their own path to their own techniques. I feel that I am able to experience at least some of this feeling of inner stillness and general peacefulness in a variety of ways. For instance,I find that I can lose myself completely whilst sitting motionless whilst birding, and can feel very much refreshed(if a little stiff) when I decide to end my self imposed stillness. I would suggest that one of the reasons that coarse fishing is such a vast pastime in this country is that it lends itself to a kind of meditation when the ills of the world disappear for a time by simply concentrating on a float.
What I do find rather disheartening though is the temptation to extend to any type of meditation and feelings of inner peace some sort of idealised interpretation, as, for instance, Sriram did in Post 14, or as does this Orthodox Christian here:
https://sttimothy-toccoa.org/files/Keep-Inner-Stillness.pdf
and claim it as some sort of 'truth'. That's all.
-
Hi Ekim,
I completely accept that there are various techniques which lead to or allow 'inner stillness' as you call it. I have no problem at all with that. I do feel however that many people can find their own path to their own techniques. I feel that I am able to experience at least some of this feeling of inner stillness and general peacefulness in a variety of ways. For instance,I find that I can lose myself completely whilst sitting motionless whilst birding, and can feel very much refreshed(if a little stiff) when I decide to end my self imposed stillness. I would suggest that one of the reasons that coarse fishing is such a vast pastime in this country is that it lends itself to a kind of meditation when the ills of the world disappear for a time by simply concentrating on a float.
What I do find rather disheartening though is the temptation to extend to any type of meditation and feelings of inner peace some sort of idealised interpretation, as, for instance, Sriram did in Post 14, or as does this Orthodox Christian here:
https://sttimothy-toccoa.org/files/Keep-Inner-Stillness.pdf
and claim it as some sort of 'truth'. That's all.
Sorry to intrude into your conversation with ekim again.
Stillness and peace are not seen as just mood changes that one needs for relaxation every now and then. Like taking a holiday from work or something.
Peace and stillness are seen as characteristics of a certain part of ourselves that we call the Higher Self. We don't just visit the Higher Self at intervals for some peace and quite. We aim to become the Higher Self itself by eliminating the Lower Self. It is an idealistic goal that spiritual aspirants seek.
-
Sorry to intrude into your conversation with ekim again.
Stillness and peace are not seen as just mood changes that one needs for relaxation every now and then. Like taking a holiday from work or something.
Peace and stillness are seen as characteristics of a certain part of ourselves that we call the Higher Self. We don't just visit the Higher Self at intervals for some peace and quite. We aim to become the Higher Self itself by eliminating the Lower Self. It is an idealistic goal that spiritual aspirants seek.
No problem, Sriram!
No, I'm not talking about relaxation either, strangely enough. In fact, sometimes it can be the very opposite of relaxation.
As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm sure you see it that way. In fact I would suggest that your ideas bear some relation to Freud's ideas of the id, the ego and the superego. However I much prefer to see myself as an integrated whole. At least that is what I aim for. Horses for courses and all that :)
-
No problem, Sriram!
No, I'm not talking about relaxation either, strangely enough. In fact, sometimes it can be the very opposite of relaxation.
As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm sure you see it that way. In fact I would suggest that your ideas bear some relation to Freud's ideas of the id, the ego and the superego. However I much prefer to see myself as an integrated whole. At least that is what I aim for. Horses for courses and all that :)
enki,
Actually it is the lower self that is segmented and has multiple parts that are at conflict with one another. That has developed from our animal nature and tends to run after need fulfillment.
The Higher Self on the other hand is complete and integrated. Achieving that means achieving what we call (Poorna) or completeness. It is also universal, wise and balanced with no emotional see saw.