Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
In a way, I think the debate can be construed along those lines. Not calling Chomsky a mystic, but... he does tend that way sometimes. In the debate with Foucault, he basically suggests that science possesses a teleological urgency:
While I think that science can help us understand how our environment works, I'm unwilling to admit that science gradually works toward revealing timeless ideas/facts. I believe that these virtual end-points are idealized at some point by scientists working within a specific tradition.
Vimana seems to imply that the process of meditation - if everyone pursued it - would lead to an ultimate knowledge regarding our ontology in the world. I would rather look at meditation from a historical perspective and ask why meditation derives from religious practice. What connection does meditation have to religion? Why does meditation persist in certain brands of philosophy; but brands that we might classify as more theistic? Why does meditation fall out of favor in Western philosophy, especially since late-Medieval, early-Renaissance philosophy and Scholasticism?
In short, I think meditation does have a quantifiable and detectable effect on brain/physical activity, but I'm unwilling to agree that this means some kind of alternative experience of reality. Rather, I would agree (with Dak) that it channels certain areas of the brain and intensifies them, and that this experience is interpreted as a connection with external reality at large. This fits with various religious beliefs which reinforce a reality beyond the one we can interpret visually.
While I think that science can help us understand how our environment works, I'm unwilling to admit that science gradually works toward revealing timeless ideas/facts. I believe that these virtual end-points are idealized at some point by scientists working within a specific tradition.
Vimana seems to imply that the process of meditation - if everyone pursued it - would lead to an ultimate knowledge regarding our ontology in the world. I would rather look at meditation from a historical perspective and ask why meditation derives from religious practice. What connection does meditation have to religion? Why does meditation persist in certain brands of philosophy; but brands that we might classify as more theistic? Why does meditation fall out of favor in Western philosophy, especially since late-Medieval, early-Renaissance philosophy and Scholasticism?
In short, I think meditation does have a quantifiable and detectable effect on brain/physical activity, but I'm unwilling to agree that this means some kind of alternative experience of reality. Rather, I would agree (with Dak) that it channels certain areas of the brain and intensifies them, and that this experience is interpreted as a connection with external reality at large. This fits with various religious beliefs which reinforce a reality beyond the one we can interpret visually.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Meditation doesn't come from religion. Quite the opposite. In Hinduism, there is the concept of "ahamkar," which could be roughly translated as "self-action." It is considered false because awareness/nirvana/void, is not exclusive to any person or tradition and everything happens at once and is over just as soon as it happens, so Hinduism says a symbiosis with God (which in Hinduism pretty much means the universe) comes from not identifying oneself with actions, practices, beliefs, etc. The religious texts and practices are considered roads to nirvana rather than beliefs. Those are considered products of the mind, rather than the mind's state being products of the beliefs. When one detaches from ahamkar, it is as if they ride their body and mind, rather than being their body and mind and all its beliefs and practices.
This is more pronounced in Zen. In Zen, there is the "I want to hear YOU scream" thing, where they get someone to scream in a way that is not premeditated, but natural and in flow with the present moment. Unlike a more Western view where beliefs shape the mind and action, Zen holds that the mind is only shaped by beliefs when it is not aware enough of its timeless awareness.
In advaita ("not two"), Maharaj Nisargadatta says that it doesn't matter what religious practices one uses to find nirvana. You can do it through Hinduism, Buddhism, yoga, or even without any of them. Nirvana is in humanity regardless of beliefs, culture, etc.
There are practitioners of Buddhism, Zen, and Hinduism attach themselves to meditation like Christians to the bible, but to reach nirvana, meditation is not a requirement. Though it certainly can help. Some Buddhists will say "only this type of meditation will bring enlightenment," but they're not being true to Buddhism's absence of attachment from beliefs. It can be weird for Westerners to wrap their head around a "religion" of no religion, but that's the case. Meditation, like mathematics, is a discovery that exists outside the context of culture.
I wouldn't say meditation gives an alternate experience of reality so much as an amplified ordinariness. Though it is a bit different experiencing days and weeks and months as a single moment where everything happens spontaneously.
Meditation doesn't give knowledge of consciousness one doesn't already have, but detaches from outside obscurities so that the world can touch the deepest parts of one's psyche more easily. Everything makes more sense because all of one's life is a single moment where everything is connected. But the connections are wordless.
You'll notice if you read a sentence and don't say the words in your head that the meaning is still there even if you close your eyes and keep your mind silent. It's like words bounce of a more base state where "making sense" happens. Meditation can expand this to make it constant. It can be a bit disorienting at first, because memories lead to action without explicit expression in the mind. It's like knowing a scene in a movie and experiencing it without watching it, sort of a mental blindsight. Putting stuff into words can be frustrating because the mind is freed up to take in more sensory nuance when it's not describing anything.
It's like you're a photographer and you're used to cropping your photos for websites so you take them cropped (I don't think this is possible, but for the sake of argument it is), but then you stop cropping them and see more, so then when it comes cropping time, it's like, "but how? I'm missing so many things."
Edit: To illustrate the East/West disparity a bit more, I think it was Thich Nhat Hanh who said "existence and nonexistence have no place in discussions about reality." Certain sensory phenomena come into and out of being all the time, so one must look beyond them.
My perspective is a mix of East and West. I still use concept and use beliefs (rather than have them). I don't agree with the demonization of desire that some Buddhists have. I think the best desires form spontaneously and enrich one's life, and steer clear of desires that are about avoiding pain or taking the easy way out. I enjoy the Western progressive mindset which some Easterners find opposes contentment, but I think I combine both. I seek higher pleasures and rewards while being content where I am. I ride waves up and down and try to make them go up, rather than just stay where I am. I think it is foolish how some people attach to meditation, since life is an infinite mystery about more than just awareness. The universe has great variety and change, so why miss it? I also don't believe concept should be eliminated altogether, since it has been used to tap into secrets of the universe that give us great toys like the internet. In fact, rather than calling all concept false altogether, I consider it another form of perception not to be taken as the only one. Concepts like mathematics have observable results, so how is concept altogether false?
This is more pronounced in Zen. In Zen, there is the "I want to hear YOU scream" thing, where they get someone to scream in a way that is not premeditated, but natural and in flow with the present moment. Unlike a more Western view where beliefs shape the mind and action, Zen holds that the mind is only shaped by beliefs when it is not aware enough of its timeless awareness.
In advaita ("not two"), Maharaj Nisargadatta says that it doesn't matter what religious practices one uses to find nirvana. You can do it through Hinduism, Buddhism, yoga, or even without any of them. Nirvana is in humanity regardless of beliefs, culture, etc.
There are practitioners of Buddhism, Zen, and Hinduism attach themselves to meditation like Christians to the bible, but to reach nirvana, meditation is not a requirement. Though it certainly can help. Some Buddhists will say "only this type of meditation will bring enlightenment," but they're not being true to Buddhism's absence of attachment from beliefs. It can be weird for Westerners to wrap their head around a "religion" of no religion, but that's the case. Meditation, like mathematics, is a discovery that exists outside the context of culture.
I wouldn't say meditation gives an alternate experience of reality so much as an amplified ordinariness. Though it is a bit different experiencing days and weeks and months as a single moment where everything happens spontaneously.
Meditation doesn't give knowledge of consciousness one doesn't already have, but detaches from outside obscurities so that the world can touch the deepest parts of one's psyche more easily. Everything makes more sense because all of one's life is a single moment where everything is connected. But the connections are wordless.
You'll notice if you read a sentence and don't say the words in your head that the meaning is still there even if you close your eyes and keep your mind silent. It's like words bounce of a more base state where "making sense" happens. Meditation can expand this to make it constant. It can be a bit disorienting at first, because memories lead to action without explicit expression in the mind. It's like knowing a scene in a movie and experiencing it without watching it, sort of a mental blindsight. Putting stuff into words can be frustrating because the mind is freed up to take in more sensory nuance when it's not describing anything.
It's like you're a photographer and you're used to cropping your photos for websites so you take them cropped (I don't think this is possible, but for the sake of argument it is), but then you stop cropping them and see more, so then when it comes cropping time, it's like, "but how? I'm missing so many things."
Edit: To illustrate the East/West disparity a bit more, I think it was Thich Nhat Hanh who said "existence and nonexistence have no place in discussions about reality." Certain sensory phenomena come into and out of being all the time, so one must look beyond them.
My perspective is a mix of East and West. I still use concept and use beliefs (rather than have them). I don't agree with the demonization of desire that some Buddhists have. I think the best desires form spontaneously and enrich one's life, and steer clear of desires that are about avoiding pain or taking the easy way out. I enjoy the Western progressive mindset which some Easterners find opposes contentment, but I think I combine both. I seek higher pleasures and rewards while being content where I am. I ride waves up and down and try to make them go up, rather than just stay where I am. I think it is foolish how some people attach to meditation, since life is an infinite mystery about more than just awareness. The universe has great variety and change, so why miss it? I also don't believe concept should be eliminated altogether, since it has been used to tap into secrets of the universe that give us great toys like the internet. In fact, rather than calling all concept false altogether, I consider it another form of perception not to be taken as the only one. Concepts like mathematics have observable results, so how is concept altogether false?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Vimana, it does emerge from religious contexts. Every single institution you just rattled off derives from an intensely spiritual context. Even if it resists institutional religion, it does so by way of offering an alternative spirituality. You cannot deny this; it's simply history. The proposal of the mind's "timeless awareness" implies a spiritual constitution, and this is the basis for all religious belief.
There is no such thing as a discovery of something beyond the context of culture, because as soon as you make this discovery you incorporate the raw material into the context of culture. You're suggesting that there exists a pure knowledge that can be separated from cultural history; but nothing you've said proposes anything that hasn't been posited from within culture. You also keep saying that meditation isn't necessary to achieve this pure knowledge (or meaning, experience, whatever); but if cultural consciousness is capable of internalizing what you're talking about, then its discoveries immediately become part of its cultural/historical context. You can begin to see how your fantasy of pure knowledge that defies culture is a logical fallacy.
Mathematics tells us about the world, but it does not yield some realm of pure knowledge or methodology, despite what the Pythagoreans say.
EDIT: on meaning as difference, not similarity:
There is no such thing as a discovery of something beyond the context of culture, because as soon as you make this discovery you incorporate the raw material into the context of culture. You're suggesting that there exists a pure knowledge that can be separated from cultural history; but nothing you've said proposes anything that hasn't been posited from within culture. You also keep saying that meditation isn't necessary to achieve this pure knowledge (or meaning, experience, whatever); but if cultural consciousness is capable of internalizing what you're talking about, then its discoveries immediately become part of its cultural/historical context. You can begin to see how your fantasy of pure knowledge that defies culture is a logical fallacy.
Mathematics tells us about the world, but it does not yield some realm of pure knowledge or methodology, despite what the Pythagoreans say.
EDIT: on meaning as difference, not similarity:
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
There is no spirituality or cultural influence in Nirvana any more than there's spirituality or culture to having teeth or neurons. Nirvana is not knowledge. It precedes knowledge. Again, I can't explain it, but I can point to it.
This timeless witness cannot be created or destroyed by culture. It is there witnessing culture.
It's beyond culture, just like mathematics. A culture may value it, but it is not dependent on or influenced by the culture. It is the timeless witness of culture, and even this debate behind all human eyes that may read it. It is independent of culture. Or else how would bodhisattvas that renounce their entire identities and civilizations come to it? Zen and Hinduism come from different cultures, but Nirvana is just as much seeing Zen and Hinduism as it is Mayan culture or the glass of water on my counter.
You can make all the logical deductions you want about these words. They are simulations within the context of your experience, and not necessarily accurate. Logical does not equal true, and illogical does not equal false.
This timeless witness cannot be created or destroyed by culture. It is there witnessing culture.
It's beyond culture, just like mathematics. A culture may value it, but it is not dependent on or influenced by the culture. It is the timeless witness of culture, and even this debate behind all human eyes that may read it. It is independent of culture. Or else how would bodhisattvas that renounce their entire identities and civilizations come to it? Zen and Hinduism come from different cultures, but Nirvana is just as much seeing Zen and Hinduism as it is Mayan culture or the glass of water on my counter.
You can make all the logical deductions you want about these words. They are simulations within the context of your experience, and not necessarily accurate. Logical does not equal true, and illogical does not equal false.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Mathematics aren't beyond culture. You're not even reading what I'm writing, or at least not understanding it.
The witnessing of culture takes place from within it. Sorry, but there's nothing you can do to prove otherwise. That which you're pointing to is always-already appropriated by culture.
The witnessing of culture takes place from within it. Sorry, but there's nothing you can do to prove otherwise. That which you're pointing to is always-already appropriated by culture.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Nothing I can do to prove it to you. Nirvana is only "proved" by oneself for oneself, but it's not really a matter of proof since it's always there beyond any thought of there being what you do or don't conceptualize as the existence or nonexistence of Nirvana. It is not created, discovered, or learned. It is timeless and precedes all experience and exists in between it.
I'm reading what you write. I just don't agree.
Humans create culture. Culture influences human activity. But not every aspect of human life is bound by or influenced by culture. Nirvana is not created or destroyed by culture. It's conceptualized and valued within certain cultures, but it is not a creation or even a discovery because it is behind all conscious experience.
If mathematics aren't beyond culture, how come some species of lizard can count? They don't have any culture. How come the Aztecs and the Indians both had the concept of zero? Culture is just one creation/experience of sentience. It's not the other way around.
How could culture make sentience when its existence depends on the witnessing and creating of sentience?
I'm reading what you write. I just don't agree.
Humans create culture. Culture influences human activity. But not every aspect of human life is bound by or influenced by culture. Nirvana is not created or destroyed by culture. It's conceptualized and valued within certain cultures, but it is not a creation or even a discovery because it is behind all conscious experience.
If mathematics aren't beyond culture, how come some species of lizard can count? They don't have any culture. How come the Aztecs and the Indians both had the concept of zero? Culture is just one creation/experience of sentience. It's not the other way around.
How could culture make sentience when its existence depends on the witnessing and creating of sentience?
Einherjar86
Active Member
They "count" according to our definition of counting; the animals themselves do not consider what they do to be "counting." The count has cultural implications and origins that exceed biology. Mathematics, as we know it today, really derives from the necessity to be able to document one's belongings - in other words, from economics, which requires the capacity to reflect on one's property and one's potential gains/losses in a temporal sense.
If Nirvana can only be experienced by oneself for oneself, then it's solipsistic. Time and time again, you're precluding yourself from any logical discussion. It's a hopeless effort on our part.
Every aspect of human life is bounded by culture. We experience the natural necessity to defecate, but in order to do so we must reconcile that urgency with cultural decor, propriety, and tradition. We need to eat, but all our food passes through the culture industry. Culture is an experience of sentience that is capable of defining sentience as such. Your wishful preservation of some non-cultural sphere of understanding/meaning is futile, because even to ask us to believe you is an appeal to the concept of concept-less-ness. There is nothing there beyond our recognition of its difference from what we can know, and this is useless.
If Nirvana can only be experienced by oneself for oneself, then it's solipsistic. Time and time again, you're precluding yourself from any logical discussion. It's a hopeless effort on our part.
Every aspect of human life is bounded by culture. We experience the natural necessity to defecate, but in order to do so we must reconcile that urgency with cultural decor, propriety, and tradition. We need to eat, but all our food passes through the culture industry. Culture is an experience of sentience that is capable of defining sentience as such. Your wishful preservation of some non-cultural sphere of understanding/meaning is futile, because even to ask us to believe you is an appeal to the concept of concept-less-ness. There is nothing there beyond our recognition of its difference from what we can know, and this is useless.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
"Concept of concept-less-ness." Lol.
I'm not asking you to believe anything. This is actually sort of a game for me.
But so far, it does appear futile getting you to realize that Nirvana is not an invention of culture.
I'm not trying to have a logical discussion. I'm trying to point to something nonconceptual that you're trying to conceptualize and claim as a creation of culture. But since you don't realize what I'm pointing at, it is futile so far, but still fun for me.
Mathematics existed for many other purposes than economics, like astronomy, engineering, timekeeping, metallurgy, etc. It has been the same regardless of culture, just like gravity.
I will keep enjoying my cultureless, nonconceptual perception you don't believe exists. It doesn't exist to you because you're not doing it. So long as that's the trend, the same arguments will keep coming out.
And of course lizards don't call it math, but they still count. Point being the process exists for them as it does for us without any culture calling it anything.
I'm not asking you to believe anything. This is actually sort of a game for me.
But so far, it does appear futile getting you to realize that Nirvana is not an invention of culture.
I'm not trying to have a logical discussion. I'm trying to point to something nonconceptual that you're trying to conceptualize and claim as a creation of culture. But since you don't realize what I'm pointing at, it is futile so far, but still fun for me.
Mathematics existed for many other purposes than economics, like astronomy, engineering, timekeeping, metallurgy, etc. It has been the same regardless of culture, just like gravity.
I will keep enjoying my cultureless, nonconceptual perception you don't believe exists. It doesn't exist to you because you're not doing it. So long as that's the trend, the same arguments will keep coming out.
And of course lizards don't call it math, but they still count. Point being the process exists for them as it does for us without any culture calling it anything.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's a game for me too, but like one of those games that you play with yourself. You know, like masturbating.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Einherjar86
Active Member
cool
female detectives stink
Jessica Chastain lol a 5'4 100 pound shrimp throwing around neo nazis, right. Well maybe if the nazis were female ...
but I did like (believe) her role in zero dark thirty. We don't disagree as much as you think. ok, I'll shut up now.
Size doesn't matter
cool. They can make actors look totally different on film. Why do we need to cast Andre the Giant every time we need an ass-kicking?
Dak
mentat
I concur with Jimmy. I knew one ass kicking woman in the Marines and she was built like a dude (she powerlifted at one point). Fortunately for her she had a pretty face and could afford a boobjob so she still maintained a reasonable level of (culturally accepted) attractiveness.
I don't care whether it's a man or woman, 5 foot nothing and 100lbs doesn't toss around 6footplus 250lb thicknecks.
I don't care whether it's a man or woman, 5 foot nothing and 100lbs doesn't toss around 6footplus 250lb thicknecks.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
You'll argue anything, you're ridiculousExaggerate much?
In the particular scene I was referring we need a man or an exceptional woman, especially physically.
I understand that the show could probably stand on it's own conceptually but then you're changing the dynamics of the characters. Especially a character like Rust who has "been in the shit" and developed a certain world view via this experience.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I will, and I am; but I happen to be right about this.
I guarantee you that Rust Cohle didn't kick ass because of his weight; those fucking bikers outweighed him by a lot. He kicked ass because he trained, and there's no reason to doubt that a female detective wouldn't train, being in that profession.
Furthermore, there's no reason to doubt that a female detective who trains wouldn't have an edge on bikers who, while they may lift, are likely also suffering from years of drug and alcohol abuse. You both are prescribing the role of "detective" to men, and it's fucking idiotic.
Finally, the criteria of attractiveness are culturally dictated. It's traditional beauty, and (Jimmy) your fucking thirty-point scale that contribute to this. Women are restricted by the very perspectives that you hold of them and criticize them for not being able to break out of.
EDIT: what makes True Detective great isn't the gun wielding or the ass-kicking, but the ideas and themes it explores. There's no reason to believe that introducing female leads would in any way diminish that. If we need shootout scenes like in episode four for this show to be great, then we have other problems in need of addressing.
I guarantee you that Rust Cohle didn't kick ass because of his weight; those fucking bikers outweighed him by a lot. He kicked ass because he trained, and there's no reason to doubt that a female detective wouldn't train, being in that profession.
Furthermore, there's no reason to doubt that a female detective who trains wouldn't have an edge on bikers who, while they may lift, are likely also suffering from years of drug and alcohol abuse. You both are prescribing the role of "detective" to men, and it's fucking idiotic.
Finally, the criteria of attractiveness are culturally dictated. It's traditional beauty, and (Jimmy) your fucking thirty-point scale that contribute to this. Women are restricted by the very perspectives that you hold of them and criticize them for not being able to break out of.
EDIT: what makes True Detective great isn't the gun wielding or the ass-kicking, but the ideas and themes it explores. There's no reason to believe that introducing female leads would in any way diminish that. If we need shootout scenes like in episode four for this show to be great, then we have other problems in need of addressing.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Sorry man you're just way off here. Even a trained woman will tell you she can not match a bigger (not just by height and weight but bone density, natural ligament and tendon strength, stamina via oxygen capacity etc) or even same size male. This is why men and women do not fight in the UFC, it's just not fair.
You have a problem with my 30 point scale? who am I hurting really? it's just based on looks not the persons character or personality and I think this is understood; it's all in fun.
You have a problem with my 30 point scale? who am I hurting really? it's just based on looks not the persons character or personality and I think this is understood; it's all in fun.
Dak
mentat
Training might allow a much smaller person to incapacitate a slow moving thickneck through accurate strikes at vulnerable areas, but this is not a tossaround, and still quite difficult depending on the strength difference besides. Ever punch someone with abs of steel in the stomach? Going to hurt your hand rather than knock the wind out of them. Same thing for trying to do a chop to the neck.
I'm not critiquing TD specifically because I haven't seen it yet, but I am pointing out the absurdity of small women and men flinging around hordes of muscly brutes.
Of course, if we just grant it's all just unrealistic TV anyway then this really isn't an issue. So what if tiny Tina knocks out Andre the Giant? TV is built on bullshit.
I'm not critiquing TD specifically because I haven't seen it yet, but I am pointing out the absurdity of small women and men flinging around hordes of muscly brutes.
Of course, if we just grant it's all just unrealistic TV anyway then this really isn't an issue. So what if tiny Tina knocks out Andre the Giant? TV is built on bullshit.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Right, and I want to keep the bullshit out of the handful of shows I actually like. These fuckers have to infiltrate everything.
