Am I A Materialist?

[badpuppy]

. Real science is crazy open-ended;

 

This is why it's so hard for me to understand why materialism is so often assumed by some as an assumption that just MUST be true because it's "proven by science". I see it like you do... crazy open-ended. And I see all these various theories, several of them what I would class as 'conscious universe' theories by biologists, astrophysicists, and quantum physicists. These men are "real scientists", and brilliant men. I'm not saying that makes them "right", but there are definitely legitimate scientific theories and understandings of the nature of reality that go beyond materialism as the end-all be-all or flat-out contradict it. So it really bothers me when some people try to co-opt science as if one specific branch of science and theories in that branch are somehow the "definers of all reality" or even "empirically right". I feel like we're headed toward a paradigm shift, and my clue isn't that a bunch of new-age hippies are talking about universal consciousness, but that actual scientists are.

 

I hate the implication that people who believe in a larger reality are somehow disrespectful of science or anti-science. I'm not anti-science. I have nothing but respect for good, solid science. I just think SOME scientists and SOME fans of some scientists/theories get a little too overzealous about the implications of their theories and go beyond the evidence. If there is a higher reality, then that doesn't make science worthless or the methodological materialistic assumptions worthless. They are totally workable inside their sphere (sort of like quantum theory works on the little things and general relativity works on the big things.) But I just don't believe we're ever going to find the "theory of everything" until we bring Mind into it.

[Legion]

And on another topic, I wanted to mention something about common understandings of science and science education. Real science is crazy open-ended; science education, especially at the lower levels, is all about getting the right answers. I used to like science because it gave me answers to things. I liked the idea of experiements because you could get the satisfaction of knowing you'd done your math right. Then I got involved in real research, and was rather intimidated by the concept that no one could tell me if I'd gotten the right answer. Because the whole point of research is to play with something that we don't know the right answer to, to generate new "answers", or to add more measurments to make the existing answer a little more precise, a little more right. But even all the "right answers" that we're sure of come with error bars. Science isn't about find the True Answer; it's about find truer answers than we had before. And double checking them, and ripping other people's work apart just be be sure.

Ah, yes. Mmm Hmm I think Kuhn was onto some things. I think we are in the midst of a scientific change. My few experiences with the frontiers of current research are bewildering to say the least. Keeping my wits about me when there seems to be key. There be monsters and wonders.

[Antlerman]

Just a footnote. I just re-read my topic I linked to above which I wrote almost exactly five years ago. As a personal note, I'm rather amazed at seeing the genesis of the thoughts I've exploded into how I understand things now. There are some areas I would refine and deepen, but it still amazes me to see that small kernel of thought that was somehow intuitively seeing all this I see and can articulate much clearer today. Very cool. Sorry, it's just like reading a journal entry from my distant past to see the genesis of who I was becoming today.

 

I'll get to my other thoughts later. Hopefully, that old topic might spawn some discussion points in this thread as it does very much relate.

OMG! AM, you were getting all sciency on me in this post: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__280323

 

Oh, the good ol' days!

Oh my. Yes. But I think what I was doing was two-fold. I was tossing out a challenge for you, and testing the edges of rationalist responses on my own. FWIW, I agree with you now, but might still use different words than Intelligence. I see Whitehead is mentioned in this current thread. I believe it was he who called consciousness in primitive forms "prehension". That consciousness we have is an more developed expression of that which runs through everything. In this sense, yes what evolved in us evolves out of the 'makeup' of the universe. This is why also you have lower and higher states of consciousness experienced in humans, greater and lesser depths within that. That's a whole other discussion, but it's interesting again to see the evolution of my thoughts from back then. I could be quite the little reductionist, couldn't I?

 

I intend to respond to the rest of VF's posts later. Been too busy the last couple days.

[NotBlinded]

Oh my. Yes. But I think what I was doing was two-fold. I was tossing out a challenge for you, and testing the edges of rationalist responses on my own. FWIW, I agree with you now, but might still use different words than Intelligence. I see Whitehead is mentioned in this current thread. I believe it was he who called consciousness in primitive forms "prehension". That consciousness we have is an more developed expression of that which runs through everything. In this sense, yes what evolved in us evolves out of the 'makeup' of the universe. This is why also you have lower and higher states of consciousness experienced in humans, greater and lesser depths within that. That's a whole other discussion, but it's interesting again to see the evolution of my thoughts from back then. I could be quite the little reductionist, couldn't I?

 

I didn't even remember how worked up I got. I laughed at myself when I read it and also, stand in bewilderment...where did all that understanding I had go? I think I tucked it away somewhere and I'll have to do some looking, behind my eyes, to find just where the hell I put it!

 

I like the word prehension. It seems more appropriate.

[Antlerman]

As promised I'm trying to get back to finish my responses...

 

To discuss later: I grew up with a Christian dualistic view where the soul was more valuable than the material, though both were real. As a Christan, I also got a warped view of Eastern philosophy and still don't quite get the concept of Maya, which in some versions says that the material world is an illusion. Both of those concepts seem to say that spirit > body, which can lead to unhealthy mind-over-matter things like faith healing instead of chemo treatment, or telling people with mental illnesses that they're just lazy or immoral for not getting over it. I have personally found great comfort in the non-dualistic bottoms-up view, because it make me feel validated. My body matters because the physical world is the only reality, and my mental states matter because they are actual physical things (in the sense that the tides are an actual physical thing, even if you can't bring a bottle of it back to the lab). It lets me quit feeling guilty for not being strong enough mentally to force myself to not have problems.

This is an important point the ties directly into the topic of materialism. Dualism is in fact a part of this as you say, but that sword cuts both ways for both the spiritual and the materialist. What you are describing above is to me better stated as the paths of ascension and descension. In Eastern and Western religious traditions Spirit is the goal, and the denial of the flesh and the world are seen as necessary means to attainment of God. This is the path of ascension towards Spirit. In the West in the Enlightenment what you had was a reversal of that, where science and naturalism (rightly so) embraced knowledge and appreciation of this present natural world with great gusto. We did so with the same denial of all things spiritual and transcendent, as those on the path of ascension did to the things of this world. The path of descension is path of focus downward into the world (that is not a value judgement mind you).

 

In the traditions of the neo-plantonists Plotinus, as well in the East with Nagarjuna, the two paths were brought together. The path of ascension to the One, then from the One into the world, or from the many to the One, and from the One to the many. The fulfillment of spiritual awakening becomes God in the world, so to speak. Other traditions of theism such as panentheism (not pantheism), view God as transcendent to the world as well as immanent within the world. So what the West has done in its history is to simply reverse the direction of its single-direction path in a dualistic world, from all subject, to all object.

 

Nonduality is often understood in the West to mean nothing but the physical, only the objective is *real* reality. It "solves" duality by getting rid of the validity of the subjective. It calls it all physical - mind is brain, that sort of business. That is not nonduality in the Eastern sense. Nonduality is formlessness from which all forms arise. There is neither subject nor object. The physical is form. The physical is an object. Even God, for that matter is an object. So applying the path of ascension and descension to the nondual, form finds its source out from the formless, the Ground, if you will. It finds its full realization in the path of ascension towards that Source as its Goal, its fulfillment. From that fulfillment, its full realization, it then pours downward into the world with that illumination, emptying itself from the highest to the lowest down into forgetfulness to arise again.

 

The awakened mind is Spirit aware of itself as Spirit. As NotBlinded put it in so many words, we are the eyes of God. We are God. But in nonduality, even God dissolves into the Infinite. How I put it is that God is the face on the infinite in a dualistic perspective. In nonduality, we become God, and beyond. God beyond God, so to speak. There is no 'we', no 'me', not even 'all'. There simply IS. All that is, is That.

 

So again back to materialism. Materialism is the path of descension only. It itself is in fact stuck in a dualistic world, but one in denial of the other half of life. That other half on the path of ascension. It is simply a shift in direction, not a bringing together of anything in a united whole.

 

 

BTW, you are right about emergentism. I'll get to this later as time permits, again.

[Legion]

nonduality

To the extent that uh... nonduality, can be experienced or brought into conscious awareness then I think that's groovy.

 

However...

 

I return to my desire for understanding. I think one of the prerequisites for gaining understanding is the use of discernment. And every mode of discernment creates a duality.

 

In other words, I believe I can do "nonduality" and have appreciation, but I can't do it and have understanding.

[Antlerman]

nonduality

To the extent that uh... nonduality, can be experienced or brought into conscious awareness then I think that's groovy.

 

However...

 

I return to my desire for understanding. I think one of the prerequisites for gaining understanding is the use of discernment. And every mode of discernment creates a duality.

 

In other words, I believe I can do "nonduality" and have appreciation, but I can't do it and have understanding.

It depends on how you define "understanding". You can understand something experientially, in other words have knowledge of it, like knowing love for instance. You understand what love is through the knowledge of that experience. The knowledge of that experience can then be used to inform your congnitive understanding of it through reason and signs.

 

To draw off of William James, the way we process information is it first hits us as a raw, unmediated experience. We then split that into two parts, the objective and the subjective. "What was that?," is the mind spliting it into the external world. "What does it mean?," is the mind spliting it to the internal world. That's dualism. We interpret the word as external and internal, objective and subjective. Reductionsim, or better stated a subtle reductionism flattens to entire domain of the internal to an aspect of the external world. It evaluates, explores, and understands the subjective, objectively in other words. And this is true whether you are talking component level or systems level reductionism. Gross reductionism flattly denies the subjective as it sees everything as reducible to the physical only; atomism in another word.

 

In reality it is both halves, both domains functioning together in a dualistic reality. To quote James again, "The paper seen and the seeing of it is one indistinguishable fact". You teased me a few days ago when I said all of reality is a symbolic reality. This is what I meant. Everything that hits the mind is a mediated reality. Raw experience is unmediated. The second you think about it, it no splits into dualism, and it is mediated symbolically - a tree, my car, the consequences. All of which carry layers upon layers of symbolic significance imparted to us through our languages, cultures, and aquired life history. To try to understand humans on a component level only is laughable. To try to know ourselves through science alone is also absurd.

 

Nonduality is the end of all symbols, hence why even God becomes emptiness itself, as God is a symbol to our dualistic mind, processing the experience of emptiness. As you move into that, beyond all the symbols, beyond any mediation, there is nothing put pure unmediated mind. Pure awareness, without any judgment whatsoever. No good, no bad, just IS.

[Legion]

Yeah! Now we're talking Ant.

 

It depends on how you define "understanding".

This is complex in my assessment. I'll try to be careful.

 

In some sense I agree with this and with much of what you said following this. However, I don't know entirely whether understanding is "constructed" (i.e. defined) or if it is "discovered" (i.e. has an objective nature). It might be both or neither.

 

Anyway, I place a high degree of value on what I call "explicit understanding". When in possession of this, the bearer has the ability to explain and predict (postdict, decode) events.

[Antlerman]

Yeah! Now we're talking Ant.

 

It depends on how you define "understanding".

This is complex in my assessment. I'll try to be careful.

 

In some sense I agree with this and with much of what you said following this. However, I don't know entirely whether understanding is "constructed" (i.e. defined) or if it is "discovered" (i.e. has an objective nature). It might be both or neither.

 

Anyway, I place a high degree of value on what I call "explicit understanding". When in possession of this, the bearer has the ability to explain and predict (postdict, decode) events.

Admittedly I'm struggling for the right word. As to what you are saying, I agree with the validity of this. It too has difficultly to put into words. I would say, let me speculate here a minute, that the closer we are in a less 'mediated' understanding, in other words closer to the larger scale understanding there is, the broader the range of it that is able to include multiple perspectives as well into that understanding.

 

That level of understanding then informs the mind in possesion of that higher perspective. The higher the persepctive, the broader the understanding, the more that informs everything else. I think it was Jean Gebser who referred to an aperspectival understanding. I think that's what I'm suggesting as well. It's still understanding, just more true to nature. The exact opposite of that is experience with no understanding whatsoever, just blindly struck and reacting.

 

Am I making sense? I'll have to chew this awhile.

[Legion]

Now this is constructive dialogue in my opinion. Thank you A-man.

 

Admittedly I'm struggling for the right word. As to what you are saying, I agree with the validity of this. It too has difficultly to put into words. I would say, let me speculate here a minute, that the closer we are in a less 'mediated' understanding, in other words closer to the larger scale understanding there is, the broader the range of it that is able to include multiple perspectives as well into that understanding.

 

That level of understanding then informs the mind in possesion of that higher perspective. The higher the persepctive, the broader the understanding, the more that informs everything else. I think it was Jean Gebser who referred to an aperspectival understanding. I think that's what I'm suggesting as well. It's still understanding, just more true to nature. The exact opposite of that is experience with no understanding whatsoever, just blindly struck and reacting.

 

Am I making sense? I'll have to chew this awhile.

I can sort of feel what you're saying. I think of the process of being critical of our own claims to understanding are part of learning, however I think there is most definitely a time to cease from learning and simply utlize the understanding one currently has.

 

Did that add anything? I hope so.

[VacuumFlux]

I always get a kick out of the artificial intelligence community. Every decade or so it claims to be on the cusp of machine consciousness. This from machines that still present the Blue Screen of Death on a regular basis just trying to load a frigging spreadsheet? Yeah, right.

Yeah, those are always good for a laugh. If computers ever do become conscious, I doubt it will because we've been able to program them that way. There was one experiment with learning robots (they learned to navigate their environment based on input from sensors) where they found out that the robots ended up wiring themselves with logic that relied on particular quirks of each robot's hardware.

I'm not sure how a view that the physical world is the only reality is non-dualistic. Can you elaborate?

It's non-dualistic compared to what I believed as a christian, where the dualism I'm talking about is specifically mind/body dualism. I was taught that spirit beings like angels and god have their more "physical" existence on a different plane than ours, though they can choose to interact with our material world. Animals are all body. Humans are both. Christianity had a lot of focus on the struggle between the flesh and spirit, as if they were two completely different types of entities. So I ended up with a lot of mind-over-matter nonsense and did not recognise the physical causes for a lot of my mood problem. I tried to solve my problems by identifying as a spirit and running away from my physical body. But from a materialistic/emmergent view, that doesn't work because my spirit and body are (sorta) the same entity. I am not a mind living inside a body; both my mind and body are tightly interconnected and integral parts of "me".

 

As far as feeling validated by being able to identify myself as physical phenomena in a concrete material environment, I don't know that this really does anything for me personally one way or the other. I guess I'm not sure how germane the question is: if I am really asleep in the Matrix, does it change the reality of my experiences or my feelings, to me? Probably not.

 

But in the Matrix, you still have a body (even if it's just a virtual one). I was denying even that much of a connection to the external world. But if there is some form of existence that it so far beyond this one that it doesn't affect my life, then no, it doesn't change much. And in the Matrix, I suppose there is still the point that once you know it's virtual, you get superpowers. If I'm limiting myself out of ignorance of the true nature of reality and missing out on cool stuff, I'd like to know about it.

 

Another topic that might be useful later: I see "myself" in three levels. In the narrowest sense, I am my conscious mind. That limited sense of self leads to much anxiety, because when I only identify with that part of me, I freak out when my subconscious makes decisions without me. And it makes lots of them. I'm better off thinking of my conscious mind as the referee who's only there to pick which part of my subconscious needs to be in charge (connected to the body) at the moment. Like a switch board operator. Then there's the me in the largest sense, which includes my whole body. I lean towards a ghost in the machine view of myself, which messes me up sometimes, so thinking in materialist terms helps me be more of an integrated whole.

I think I get where you are coming from. You want control. And I don't think this is inherently a Bad Thing. My objection to surrendering to things like alternate modes of consciousness or peak experiences probably speaks to that issue as much as it does to anything; why would I want to blindly investigate a highly subjective and ineffable realm presented to me by a universe which has not already done its part to earn my trust or respect? Sorry, I want to see such realms and evaluate them as readily as I can see and evaluate what I read on my computer screen.

Bolding mine. I see most (all?) of the realms I can access as aspects of myself, or my subconscious, or whatever. So it's not being open to the universe so much as claiming what already belongs to me. And sometimes I find useful things that got burried somewhere, and can pull them out an use them.

 

On a different subject, while trying to figure out replies (many of which I'm still thinking about), I realized that I could equally have titled this thread "Am I Spiritual?" 'Cause when I first deconverted, I didn't think I was. For a long time, I was struck with this feeling of "now what??" I saw all these empty gaping holes inside of me that I didn't know how to fill, mostly relating to basic question about how to live life ethically. I felt like I'd been dumped into this life without the users' manual. And as I went looking for some way to fill in the gaps, some of the most useful things I found were Buddhist/yoga/meditation type stuff. One site on yoga says that yoga is a science; it's not a religion, though it can be part of one. And I have found it to contain all sorts of practical advice on daily living.

 

I sorta view my spiritual pursuits as the mental/emotional (not exactly intellectual, though) equivalent of physical health. With my physical body, I've been innundated with messages about how much water to drink, how to eat healthy, and the importance of exercise. If I want to be an athlete, there's plenty of information about how to do that. If I'm sick, there's doctors. For mental health, it's great that we have doctors. But we don't have a lot of basic maintainance information equivalent to "wash your hands to avoid catching germs". The concept of things like "take time for yourself" and "take a few deep breaths to calm down if you're getting worked up" are out there, but compared to the stuff we're taught about caring for a physical bodies, we're highly uninformed about taking care of our minds. And the mental/emotional equivalent of being an athlete? The closest I've found is yoga/Buddhism stuff. And that always seems to fall into the category of spiritual. So I guess the fact that this is something I want to pursue makes me a spiritual person. But I am confused about that a little, particularly when I read stuff about karma and reincarnation that isn't at all obvious to me like it is to the authors and feels more supernatural than I'm comfortable with. But the most usefull stuff I've read on these topics, and the stuff that despite my confusion makes the most sense to me, seems to be categorized as spiritual. So that's why I think I can call myself spiritual; I belive that the emergent properties of our physical existence are just as real as any physical object and important to cultivate. I'm even ok labeling these emergent properties of my material body (and its interactions with itself and my environment, etc) as my spirit since that seems to communicate what I mean most clearly (though it's very different from my understanding of the term "spirit" as a christian). So part of what I'm asking is why do I, a materialist, find so much stuff to relate to in the realm of the spiritual when I didn't think I believed that I even have a spirit?

[VacuumFlux]

To draw off of William James, the way we process information is it first hits us as a raw, unmediated experience. We then split that into two parts, the objective and the subjective. "What was that?," is the mind spliting it into the external world. "What does it mean?," is the mind spliting it to the internal world. That's dualism. We interpret the word as external and internal, objective and subjective. Reductionsim, or better stated a subtle reductionism flattens to entire domain of the internal to an aspect of the external world. It evaluates, explores, and understands the subjective, objectively in other words. And this is true whether you are talking component level or systems level reductionism. Gross reductionism flattly denies the subjective as it sees everything as reducible to the physical only; atomism in another word.

 

I've got a strong sense of dualism inside my head, and I'm trying to figure out if the experiences that spring to my mind are the same dualism you're talking about here. I feel like the split comes in between my logic&language brain and the color&texture&taste brain. The language brain is the one that interacts with other humans, but all my memories are stored in tastes and color and textures and feelings. I often get a feeling of needing to translate between them when I'm trying to communicate my memories, feelings, and impressions with another human. It's strange to feel my mental objects get turned into words. 'Cuase it's not useful to say to anyone else "hm, that event tastes like a fuzzy purple cube. But with rounded corners, even though the edges are fairly sharp". Language brain usually seems to be involved in the "what was that?" sort of questions. Sometimes it's also involved in the "what does it mean?"/"what do I do with that?" sort of questions, but to answer those questions requires me to look internally and ask myself what I'm feeling. I tend to think of it as logic brain being my conscious mind and a sort of gatekeeper, and everything else (all the feelings and stuff that have to be translated to get into words) as my subconscious, as some giant warehouse where everything gets stored. I feel like my conscious mind goes around with a flashlight flashlight beam in a large, unlit space looking for the things it needs to use. So I guess that language brain might be the objective while the asking myself what I'm feeling is the subjective.

 

About reductionism... hm. Is emergentism incompatible with reductionism? I certainly believe that my mental states that I just described are... composed of? built on top of? my material brain, nervous system, and brain chemistry. But my mental states aren't a physical object that you can pick up, and they're highly dynamic... And it's certainly not particularly useful to talk about most of my mental states in terms of what my physical brain is doing to cause them (except for when I'm sick and that makes me stupid and I have to figure out whether it's blood sugar or food allergies or what). Am I going in the right direction with this?

[DesertBob]

I'm not sure how a view that the physical world is the only reality is non-dualistic. Can you elaborate?

It's non-dualistic compared to what I believed as a christian, where the dualism I'm talking about is specifically mind/body dualism.

O,IC. I was confusing what you said with dualism in the Buddhist sense.

 

Now that you mention it, evangelical thought is rather obsessed with over-compartmentalizing life. Even their internal theological squabbles seemed to be about things like how to properly divide revelation into "dispensations", differing rule-sets for interpreting scripture during different epochs of time, so you had your dispensationalist / hyperdispensationalist debate; which led to debates about proper ordering of all these multiplied concepts, like post, pre or a-milleniallism. In retrospect all this splitting of hairs reflected their contortions to try to harmonize their theology in great detail with observable reality. Much of Christianity just doesn't bother to look that close but if you believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant in every detail then you are obliged to explain a great deal more, which leads to baroque systems of classification and equivocation.

I see most (all?) of the realms I can access as aspects of myself, or my subconscious, or whatever. So it's not being open to the universe so much as claiming what already belongs to me. And sometimes I find useful things that got buried somewhere, and can pull them out and use them.

Even if I were certain that anything I encounter that is not normally accessible to me in everyday meatspace were just part of myself, I'd have to be sure that it's not buried for good reason. How do I know that I'm not circumventing a protective mechanism that evolution has provided me? It reminds me of the 1950's sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet, where an entire civilization was wiped out when they found a way to make anything a reality just by thinking about it, but didn't realize there were all sorts of primal things bumping about in their subconcious that created "monsters from the id" that did them in.

 

My fiancee had a brief flirtation with things like marijuana, 'shrooms, peyote and LSD in her salad days and thinks it would do me good to have a toke or three to loosen up my thinking. She's a little like Steve Jobs, who felt like doing acid was one of the most important things he ever did to expand his consciousness, even though he'd long since quit using. But since I earn my living from my intellect, I'm rather protective of it and don't want to screw it up since it's pretty much the last solid lynchpin of my existence and my very livelihood depends on it functioning correctly.

 

And the mental/emotional equivalent of being an athlete? The closest I've found is yoga/Buddhism stuff. And that always seems to fall into the category of spiritual. So I guess the fact that this is something I want to pursue makes me a spiritual person. But I am confused about that a little, particularly when I read stuff about karma and reincarnation that isn't at all obvious to me like it is to the authors and feels more supernatural than I'm comfortable with. But the most usefull stuff I've read on these topics, and the stuff that despite my confusion makes the most sense to me, seems to be categorized as spiritual. So that's why I think I can call myself spiritual; I belive that the emergent properties of our physical existence are just as real as any physical object and important to cultivate. I'm even ok labeling these emergent properties of my material body (and its interactions with itself and my environment, etc) as my spirit since that seems to communicate what I mean most clearly (though it's very different from my understanding of the term "spirit" as a christian). So part of what I'm asking is why do I, a materialist, find so much stuff to relate to in the realm of the spiritual when I didn't think I believed that I even have a spirit?

Most people have a strong tendency to superimpose unwarranted meaning on things they don't understand. A few months ago, I observed paranormal activity that I can't explain to my satisfaction naturalistically which most people in the Christian world would, I think, conclude speaks to the existence of god and an afterlife as normally conceived in the Christian world when in fact it empirically says zero about both of those things; all it does is raise interesting questions about the nature of consciousness while answering none of them, rendering it almost completely unactionable and therefore irrelevant for practical purposes.

 

I think you've arrived at your "mental and emotional health regimen" in the same way that the Buddah probably arrived at his core philosophy -- through dispassionate empirical observation and experience. That Buddhism has become barnacled with gods and karma and reincarnation since then is easily explained by early adherents coming out of Hinduism and superimposing their set of assumptions and preconceptions and interpretations on their subjective Buddhist experiences. In fact, the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion. That is why its basic ideas are timeless and resonate with a wide range of teachings including many that are distinctly areligious, such as those of Jung and Schopenhauer, both of whom were attracted to eastern thinking after developing their own ideas because of this resonance and not because of some religious quest.

[Deva]

That Buddhism has become barnacled with gods and karma and reincarnation since then is easily explained by early adherents coming out of Hinduism and superimposing their set of assumptions and preconceptions and interpretations on their subjective Buddhist experiences. In fact, the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion. That is why its basic ideas are timeless and resonate with a wide range of teachings including many that are distinctly areligious, such as those of Jung and Schopenhauer, both of whom were attracted to eastern thinking after developing their own ideas because of this resonance and not because of some religious quest.

 

Must go on record as disagreeing with this interpretation. Please do not go away thinking all Buddhists think this is true. Quite frankly, its bullshit. Gautama was a Hindu. His world view indeed was formed by it. If you strip it of its "mumbo jumbo" its just materialistic atheism. It would suck in my opinion.

 

Many, many people say it is a religion, and I am one of them.

[VacuumFlux]

I see most (all?) of the realms I can access as aspects of myself, or my subconscious, or whatever. So it's not being open to the universe so much as claiming what already belongs to me. And sometimes I find useful things that got buried somewhere, and can pull them out and use them.

Even if I were certain that anything I encounter that is not normally accessible to me in everyday meatspace were just part of myself, I'd have to be sure that it's not buried for good reason. How do I know that I'm not circumventing a protective mechanism that evolution has provided me? It reminds me of the 1950's sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet, where an entire civilization was wiped out when they found a way to make anything a reality just by thinking about it, but didn't realize there were all sorts of primal things bumping about in their subconcious that created "monsters from the id" that did them in.

 

It's too late for me not to cross that line. When I was younger and stupider, I put up some walls in my mind to prevent emotions that I didn't want to feel. I didn't like the way I'd get angry over nothing sometimes (in retrospect, it was a combination of being a teenager and imbalanced hormones worse than normal female mood swings), so I taught myself to never feel anger. I didn't know that the time that some anger is justified, so I didn't have any exceptions for being allowed to feel anger when someone had hurt me. I turned myself into an easy victim. I was also terrified of my emerging sexuality (which is, uh, abnormal - I'm very kinky and often see sex as a subcategory of violence) and since I didn't even know that was my sexuality, I made it stop too. I took the pieces of me I didn't want, shoved them in a box, and buried the box in the back of my mind. I was born with more power over my own internal processes than most people seem to have, but with no knowledge or wisdom about how to use it well. I damaged myself fairly badly and am still trying to get back to a normal human level of coping with life. I want to make sure that I never make mistakes like that again.

 

My fiancee had a brief flirtation with things like marijuana, 'shrooms, peyote and LSD in her salad days and thinks it would do me good to have a toke or three to loosen up my thinking. She's a little like Steve Jobs, who felt like doing acid was one of the most important things he ever did to expand his consciousness, even though he'd long since quit using. But since I earn my living from my intellect, I'm rather protective of it and don't want to screw it up since it's pretty much the last solid lynchpin of my existence and my very livelihood depends on it functioning correctly.

 

I like to say that I don't need drugs because my brain makes its own (and I don't like loosing control; alcohol is very upsetting because I can't will myself sober; when my own brain makes the drugs, it's faster to swap modes). In retrospect again, some of that started when my hormones went nuts and I had a few hypomanic episodes. In healthier settings, I can't do math/science without hitting altered states of consciousness. Quantum was one of the best classes for that, since the math was rather involved. I have excellent 3D visualization skills, and can even plot simple functions (3d surfaces, usually) in my head. Doing so makes my mouth water; I can taste the math. When I'm very stressed and can't access the trippy pictures side of my head, I can't do science either. It's like my logic brain is too small to hold onto the entire concept at once, so I use the "art" side of my brain to store the big picture while logic brain goes around and tweaks the details. The vast majority of my mystical experiences came while doing homework.

 

There's something about eastern philosophies/religions that seems to be more intuitive to me. From the western side of things, I feel like I'm supposed to be experiencing a disconnect/conflict between cold logic and irrational emotions. But, uh, the way I do math sounds like I'm on drugs, so phrasing it in those terms doesn't work for me.

[Deva]

Sorry for derailing thread.

[Legion]

But Deva... surely you recognize that Buddhism comes along with a whole ton of trappings which are completely, and utterly irrelevant to the core of Buddhist teachings.

 

I see some very powerful things in Buddhism. But if I ever become a Buddhist, then I'll be wearing bluegeans and boots, not a robe.

[Deva]

Yes, Legion, you may wear whatever you like.

[badpuppy]

That Buddhism has become barnacled with gods and karma and reincarnation since then is easily explained by early adherents coming out of Hinduism and superimposing their set of assumptions and preconceptions and interpretations on their subjective Buddhist experiences. In fact, the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion. That is why its basic ideas are timeless and resonate with a wide range of teachings including many that are distinctly areligious, such as those of Jung and Schopenhauer, both of whom were attracted to eastern thinking after developing their own ideas because of this resonance and not because of some religious quest.

 

Must go on record as disagreeing with this interpretation. Please do not go away thinking all Buddhists think this is true. Quite frankly, its bullshit. Gautama was a Hindu. His world view indeed was formed by it. If you strip it of its "mumbo jumbo" its just materialistic atheism. It would suck in my opinion.

 

Many, many people say it is a religion, and I am one of them.

 

I agree, Deva. When I first encountered Buddhist thought, it was this western atheistic version of it. I know that like any other faith, Buddhism comes in many flavors, but when people say Buddhism is a nontheistic religion, I don't think that means it's an atheistic religion. To me it's both nontheistic and non-atheistic. But what I was exposed to early on was the atheistic version of Buddhism in the west. (not that all western Buddhists are atheistic, just that it seems to be a trend here.)

 

While I dropped the label, there are a lot of things I accept, such as reincarnation. I'm mixed on how I feel about karma. I need to think on that one some more. I used to absolutely believe in it, now I'm not sure how I feel on the issue but I definitely don't think the idea is "mumbo jumbo" or an idea that is unproductive to Buddhism.

 

I also kind of feel like (and I'm sure some would disagree with me), that reincarnation is a fairly central tenet of Buddhism. Without it, certain other concepts fall apart, such as breaking the cycle of rebirth. If "rebirth" is merely metaphorical and not actual reincarnation, then you don't really need Buddhism for that... as a finite being, you'd just have to "wait it out". And if Nirvana could be described as the cessation of suffering at death (i.e. nothingness), you would similarly only have to "wait it out".

 

To me Buddhism makes greater sense in a larger context of a consciousness that goes through many lifetimes and states of consciousness. But other people's mileage may vary.

[Deva]

OK. I will backup a bit. What upsets me so much is DesertBob's dogmatic idea that Buddhism IS such and such a way. It CAN be interpreted that way, but the way it was stated implies that it is the only legit way. That, my friends, is bullshit.

 

Here is the quote in question:

 

 

..the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion.

[Legion]

OK. I will backup a bit. What upsets me so much is DesertBob's dogmatic idea that Buddhism IS such and such a way. It CAN be interpreted that way, but the way it was stated implies that it is the only legit way. That, my friends, is bullshit.

DesertBob's ego set my ego off.

 

There's a few egos here that do that to me too. (And sometime's my own does.)

[Deva]

[

I also kind of feel like (and I'm sure some would disagree with me), that reincarnation is a fairly central tenet of Buddhism. Without it, certain other concepts fall apart, such as breaking the cycle of rebirth. If "rebirth" is merely metaphorical and not actual reincarnation, then you don't really need Buddhism for that... as a finite being, you'd just have to "wait it out". And if Nirvana could be described as the cessation of suffering at death (i.e. nothingness), you would similarly only have to "wait it out".

 

To me Buddhism makes greater sense in a larger context of a consciousness that goes through many lifetimes and states of consciousness. But other people's mileage may vary.

 

Agree. The purpose of enlightenment is breaking free of the cycle of repeated incarnations.

[VacuumFlux]

Sorry for derailing thread.

 

Not at all; I think this discussion is quite relevant to what I'm trying to understand.

 

To me Buddhism makes greater sense in a larger context of a consciousness that goes through many lifetimes and states of consciousness. But other people's mileage may vary.

 

OK. I will backup a bit. What upsets me so much is DesertBob's dogmatic idea that Buddhism IS such and such a way. It CAN be interpreted that way, but the way it was stated implies that it is the only legit way. That, my friends, is bullshit.

 

Here is the quote in question:

 

 

..the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion.

 

Part of what I'm trying to understand is whether I'm just a non-spiritual person attracted to the psychology part of Buddhism, or if it is the spirituality of Buddhism that attracts me. I guess that depends on how you define "spiritual" and what you think Buddhism really is.

 

On the reincarnation/rebirth thing, I don't believe that I have a consciousness that goes on after death. But neither do I believe that what I do with my consciousness in this life doesn't matter. I've got this concept that I am a part of the human race in the same way one of my cells is a part of my body. Just because my cells are dying all the time doesn't mean that I devalue the ones that exist and are alive right now, because they do contribute to the continued existence of me. So I see my choices as mattering to something bigger than me, because I personally value the entire human race because y'all are my big giant tribe. And the human race is part of the ecosystem of the earth, so the environment matters too. And all of us alive right now are going to die, and I won't be around to experience the future, but I really really want the human race to progress and not get all stupid and start wars and going around being miserable. But since the human race as a whole is made up of individuals, the only way for my vision of the future to come about is if enough of us now, in our lifetimes, work towards that goal so that we have good things to give to the future. It's not just on some intellectual level that I think that's an ethically sound choice; it's part of the instincts I think I was born with. And that goes really well with the focus on "compassion for all living beings". It's also nice to see the wisdom aspect of compassion; I've read at least one Buddhist story about how ignorantly applied compassion may end up hurting the people you want to help. I want that level of wisdom so that I can help others without hurting them or myself. I like reading the perspectives of other people who hold those same values, and hearing practical advice on how they works towards that goal.

[Deva]

Sorry for derailing thread.

 

Not at all; I think this discussion is quite relevant to what I'm trying to understand.

 

Thanks VacuumFlux.

 

Part of what I'm trying to understand is whether I'm just a non-spiritual person attracted to the psychology part of Buddhism, or if it is the spirituality of Buddhism that attracts me. I guess that depends on how you define "spiritual" and what you think Buddhism really is.

 

You could probably find out if it is the spirituality part that attracts you if you were to go to, say, a Tibetan Buddhist empowerment ceremony and entered into it with an open mind. I suspect you would be able to tell pretty quickly. Of course these definitions are just words and not the thing itself.

 

On the reincarnation/rebirth thing, I don't believe that I have a consciousness that goes on after death. But neither do I believe that what I do with my consciousness in this life doesn't matter

 

That's OK, but the way you describe the reason that what you do with your consciousness matters, doesn't quite make sense to me in view of the fact that you think you will in the near future no longer exist at all in any form. If your life matters only now, it seems rather useless in my opinion. Without any personal continuity, how exactly will it matter? This is rather hard for me to grasp, admittedly.

 

. I've read at least one Buddhist story about how ignorantly applied compassion may end up hurting the people you want to help. I want that level of wisdom so that I can help others without hurting them or myself. I like reading the perspectives of other people who hold those same values, and hearing practical advice on how they works towards that goal.

 

That's right. In Tibetan Buddhism it is called "skillful means".

[VacuumFlux]

Part of what I'm trying to understand is whether I'm just a non-spiritual person attracted to the psychology part of Buddhism, or if it is the spirituality of Buddhism that attracts me. I guess that depends on how you define "spiritual" and what you think Buddhism really is.

 

You could probably find out if it is the spirituality part that attracts you if you were to go to, say, a Tibetan Buddhist empowerment ceremony and entered into it with an open mind. I suspect you would be able to tell pretty quickly. Of course these definitions are just words and not the thing itself.

 

Hm, that would be interesting. There's probably something like that available locally if I look around.

 

On the reincarnation/rebirth thing, I don't believe that I have a consciousness that goes on after death. But neither do I believe that what I do with my consciousness in this life doesn't matter

 

That's OK, but the way you describe the reason that what you do with your consciousness matters, doesn't quite make sense to me in view of the fact that you think you will in the near future no longer exist at all in any form. If your life matters only now, it seems rather useless in my opinion. Without any personal continuity, how exactly will it matter? This is rather hard for me to grasp, admittedly.

 

My parents don't have much of a life of their own and keep trying to live vicariously through me. Sometimes when I contemplate death, I get an urge to breed so that something of me continues into the future, so I guess I can sorta see why they get that way. I don't really want to die. I like life, I like the possibilities. But I will die. Yet I will live on into the future, in the sense of thing things I leave behind, in what I've contributed to the arts, to science, to the happiness of other human beings. To me, that gives my life meaning, the hope that I can contribute to the human race in some way that will help us along in the future. I can't really tell you why, other that that it's a feeling I keep coming back to. The same way a human will rush into a burning building or jump into a stream to save another human being (particularly a child) in danger. We, the human race, will live on even after my particular individual life ends. It's like a relay race. Even though I know I'll never see the finish line, I will still carry a baton part of the way and I will know, when I am gone, that baton will keep going. I take the fact that I care as a basic fact of my existence and figure out how I want to live using that as an assumption.