3 ms·

I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found he

by hooch 7y ago

I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self. In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment. Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence? As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.

gridlockd 7y ago
> I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".
- hooch 7y ago
  Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light, for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding. In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful understanding and experience. For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. Of course not, you're a mindful person! > I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. You made statements of philosophical relevance, which were answered in kind. > In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. Sure, in the context of psychobabble, any word can mean anything you want. If you asked Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics, you would get a "wealth" of meaningless drivel that may nevertheless sound highly profound to the uninitiated. > For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. A child that says they're "no good at math" is probably telling the truth. Let's suppose the child really wasn't good at math. They haven't had any practice, why should they be good at math? After all this practice, they may become good at math, but the child wasn't good at maths before. Their earlier self-assessment hasn't been proven false. It was true at the time and forever will have been true. > The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. The statement "I'm no good at maths" doesn't actually imply such a "firmly-held belief". A statement like "I'm no good at math and I never will be no matter what I do" would. Perhaps a child might make such a statement. They're not really in the position to know, but the possibility exists that it is a more or less immutable fact. Dyscalculia is a thing, you know. See, if I didn't make this distinction, you might get away with having said something that sounds profound. It really isn't! > Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I never called you a kook and I don't think you're kook. I think you're an ordinary person that, like many people, found some appeal in mindfulness. I'm not saying that mindfulness doesn't work or that subjectively it doesn't have benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. However, the foundational teachings behind it are ultimately meaningless. They sound profound, but if you nail them down and try to get them to actually say something with a concrete meaning, they tend to fall apart. They are left intentionally vague to let your preconceived notions fill in the gaps. It's very persuasive. In any event, you can't entirely divorce the foundation from the practice. That's the point of the article. > I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. It's not that I don't like it. I'd like to like it! Nevertheless, I find it misguided. It deserves scrutiny like any belief system. > That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that. I don't expect you to. Nevertheless, I appeal to maintain your critical thinking. Don't do too much non-thinking. You can do that when you're dead.

by hooch 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".

hooch 7y ago
Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light, for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding. In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful understanding and experience. For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. Of course not, you're a mindful person! > I wasn’t presenting a philosophy. You made statements of philosophical relevance, which were answered in kind. > In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. Sure, in the context of psychobabble, any word can mean anything you want. If you asked Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics, you would get a "wealth" of meaningless drivel that may nevertheless sound highly profound to the uninitiated. > For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. A child that says they're "no good at math" is probably telling the truth. Let's suppose the child really wasn't good at math. They haven't had any practice, why should they be good at math? After all this practice, they may become good at math, but the child wasn't good at maths before. Their earlier self-assessment hasn't been proven false. It was true at the time and forever will have been true. > The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact. The statement "I'm no good at maths" doesn't actually imply such a "firmly-held belief". A statement like "I'm no good at math and I never will be no matter what I do" would. Perhaps a child might make such a statement. They're not really in the position to know, but the possibility exists that it is a more or less immutable fact. Dyscalculia is a thing, you know. See, if I didn't make this distinction, you might get away with having said something that sounds profound. It really isn't! > Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation. I never called you a kook and I don't think you're kook. I think you're an ordinary person that, like many people, found some appeal in mindfulness. I'm not saying that mindfulness doesn't work or that subjectively it doesn't have benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. However, the foundational teachings behind it are ultimately meaningless. They sound profound, but if you nail them down and try to get them to actually say something with a concrete meaning, they tend to fall apart. They are left intentionally vague to let your preconceived notions fill in the gaps. It's very persuasive. In any event, you can't entirely divorce the foundation from the practice. That's the point of the article. > I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. It's not that I don't like it. I'd like to like it! Nevertheless, I find it misguided. It deserves scrutiny like any belief system. > That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that. I don't expect you to. Nevertheless, I appeal to maintain your critical thinking. Don't do too much non-thinking. You can do that when you're dead.