/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12058205]

Why are so many folks fascinated over eastern shit? I've explored Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Taoism, Vedanta, etc. Bunch of woo no different than the others. Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.

[Anonymous No.12058213]

>>12058205
just because you do not see things that others do does not mean they are not there

[Anonymous No.12058222]

>>12058213
Just because you see things that others don't does not mean they are there

[Anonymous No.12058224]

>>12058205
You can't get into eastern shit only intellectually. You have to experience and practice. Then, and only then, you can open your stupid fucking mouth and say what you have to say.

[Anonymous No.12058270]

>>12058224

> le experience and practice

Why do I have to do that?

[Anonymous No.12058274]

>>12058270
Because you may want to stop being an insecure brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12058276]

>>12058205
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.12058284]

>>12058274

Anon you aren't explaining anything

[Anonymous No.12058289]

If it's good, it doesn't matter where it comes from. East or west, whatever. I'm a globalist when it comes to my tastes in literature.

[Anonymous No.12058300]

what is a man?

[Anonymous No.12058307]

>>12058205
Read Siddharta's Brain and medidate half an hour a day you shit.
No wait, 3h might me more suitable to stop your ass from being so stupid.
Best of luck.

[Anonymous No.12058315]

>>12058270
Eastern shit is 95% woo and 5% real shit that's interpreted in woo terms.

For example mindfulness meditation. Know how you can become immersed in a book or a video game? You can also become immersed in your own thoughts in the same way, and respond to it as if it's a reality. Pathological examples are anxiety or depression which are repeated negative thoughts that feed on themselves and become one's emotional reality. What mindfulness meditation does is train you to de-immerse yourself from inner narratives to experience them for what they are: merely mental phenomenon, not actual reality. It's pretty helpful for treating depression, anxiety, and reducing stress, but that's pretty much it.

[Anonymous No.12058319]

>>12058205
>Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.
what?

[Anonymous No.12058352]

>>12058307

So hostile. Is this what 'muh enlightened eastern shit' does to folks?

[Anonymous No.12058368]

>>12058270
Because Buddhism and Daoism at least are predicated on developing the capacity for direct experience of their truths and so changing your behavior in life. The first line of the Dao De Jing is "The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao." Without direct experience (which requires practice), you're right, they're pretty trite.

[Anonymous No.12058379]

>>12058205
Introspection is the one thing that can not be mistaken.

[Anonymous No.12058442]

>>12058379

Read some neuroscience articles

[Anonymous No.12058447]

>>12058379
>Introspection is the one thing that can not be mistaken.
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12058477]

>>12058442
I can hallucinate a neuroscience article, but I cannot hallucinate direct experience.

[Anonymous No.12058483]

>>12058315
What is "actual reality"?

[Anonymous No.12058514]

>>12058368
Pretty much any eastern philosophy involving a focus on mysticism or spiritual realization/practice includes that.

[Anonymous No.12058527]

>>12058483
Slam your head against a wall as hard as you can to find out.

[Anonymous No.12058616]

>>12058477

Why do you assume your direct experience can't be a delusion?

[Anonymous No.12058646]

>>12058477
>I cannot hallucinate direct experience.

[Anonymous No.12058653]

>>12058315
You're so full of shit that you may as well be talking out of your ass with the amount of feces dribbling out of your fingertips holy shit lol

[Anonymous No.12058657]

>>12058653
Wow nice argument I'm convinced.

[Anonymous No.12058666]

>>12058315
>basing you opinion about meditation on abnormal medicine articles only

[Anonymous No.12058674]

>>12058657
You're too fucking stupid to convince anything, I'm only here to laugh at you and let impressionable lurkers know you're a fucking retard and they should read books on their own instead of taking your stupid word for it.

[Anonymous No.12058713]

>>12058674
Mystics have literally taken the act of getting high off their own shit-fumes to the level of a science.

[Anonymous No.12058722]

>>12058616
Ideas need to be formed first in order for them to be wrong. Direct experience doesn't include ideas

[Anonymous No.12058757]

>>12058713
This

[Anonymous No.12058770]

>>12058722
Point a pencil or knife at your forehead close to the skin and imagine how intense it would feel if it were to touch, and you'll feel a phantom tingling. The mechanism of this is a feedback loop between anticipation and perception that creates a tactile hallucination. Chi, kundalini, and chakras are all based on this phenomenon, and all mystical experiences use the same mechanism. Not only sense-perceptions but also emotions can be manipulated in this way - Christians do it when they "feel God's love." Deep meditative states make such techniques more powerful by blurring the boundary between anticipation and perception.

[Anonymous No.12058789]

>>12058770
Which is why you shouldn't add woo to direct experience.
Only the direct awareness of the moment is reliable, both the new age bunk and scientific explanations aren't.

[Anonymous No.12058807]

>>12058789
Direct experience of the present moment is itself a "hallucination," though a very useful one. There's no such thing as a state of pure objectivity.

[Anonymous No.12058821]

>>12058205
>I've explored Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Taoism, Vedanta, etc
>. Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.
Seems like you haven't explored them very deeply, then, if you think they are about introspection and intuition.

[Anonymous No.12058824]

>>12058807
Hallucination implies that it's wrong or unreal right?
How can directly appreciating everything be a hallucination?

[Anonymous No.12058825]

>>12058352
>lol this philosophy is just clicks and whistles BULLSHIT lol
>it's not stop being a retard
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[Anonymous No.12058853]

>>12058824
One example is your eye's blind spots, which your brain compensates for by filling in missing information. Also there's a whole network of veins in your field of vision that are invisible to you because your brain filters them out, which you can see with a trick: https://www.aao.org/museum-education-healthy-vision/experiment-see-blood-vessels-in-your-eye

I put "hallucination" in scare quotes because "model of reality" is a better description. Whether or not this model matches reality requires testing it against reality to see how well it actually predicts and allows you to interact with it. While this model may be useful in one level, such as interacting with everyday objects, on others (such as the atomic) our perceived model of the world is completely useless.

[Anonymous No.12058856]

>>12058300
A miserable little pile of secrets.

[Anonymous No.12058898]

>>12058205
>I've explored Mahamudra...Taosim
>introspection and intuition
Want to know how I can tell you haven't really studied those things? The entire point of 2/3 of those traditions is to augment "introspection" with physical exercises and deliberate metabolism changes, which has been the case since at least the Tang dynasty once people realized "lead and mercury" were more useful as mental representations than potion ingredients.
If you're going to write off more than 1500 years of tradition at least know what you're talking about first so you don't look like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.12058905]

>>12058853
That's a pretty cool experiment.
But I'm not saying your immediate model is more accurate than a model made with careful investigation, I'm saying both are unreliable. Models are unreliable.

[Anonymous No.12058923]

>>12058821

They involve introspection and intuition. The whole 'direct experience/awareness' shenanigans.

[Anonymous No.12058929]

>>12058923
Those terms are not interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.12058936]

Why do people think neuroscience is something real?

[Anonymous No.12058944]

>>12058923
Metacognition is not introspection. You don't know what you're talking about and this is a fact.

[Anonymous No.12058951]

>>12058213
>>12058222

and i have seen things men only believe they've seen

[Anonymous No.12058973]

>>12058944

Metacognition is thinking about thinking. The traditions don't say 'think about your thoughts'

[Anonymous No.12058992]

>>12058477
>direct experience
oh dear

[Anonymous No.12058998]

>>12058352
true enligthment is not about being a passive castrated cuck, you got it all wrong now kys

[Anonymous No.12058999]

>>12058973
Yes they do, thought needs to become an object for itself to disidentify with its own contents.

[Anonymous No.12059003]

>>12058477
Lol Buddhism is not about purported access to "the Real", to an "unfiltered" awareness of reality, you have NO idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.12059020]

>>12059003
That post isn't addressing Buddhism specifically.
Also you are wrong, that's literally the only thing it is about.

[Anonymous No.12059046]

>>12059020
Post doctrinal evidence, you HAVE studied Buddhism in great detail, haven't you? :^)

[Anonymous No.12059053]

>>12058205
How long was the youtube video you saw?

[Anonymous No.12059084]

>>12059046
The diamond sutra man, it's that simple.
You should really be specific in what you think it is about if you insist that I'm wrong though.

[Anonymous No.12059086]

>>12059084
Specific passages.

[Anonymous No.12059107]

>>12059086
I get the feeling that you've got nothing and are just wasting my time.
Literally the whole thing though, here at the very beginning:
“If sons and daughters of good families want to develop the highest, most fulfilled and awakened mind, if they wish to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom and quiet their drifting minds while subduing their craving thoughts, then they should follow what I am about to say to you. Those who follow what I am about to say here will be able to subdue their discriminative thoughts and craving desires. It is possible to attain perfect tranquility and clarity of mind by absorbing and dwelling on the teachings I am about to give.”

[Anonymous No.12059127]

>>12059107
Do you deny you can experience a mind without thoughts? Do you think we're doomed to discursion?

[Anonymous No.12059132]

>>12058713
t. doesn't even know his basics in ascetic theology

https://archive.org/details/MN41530ucmf_5/page/n7

[Anonymous No.12059141]

>>12059127
No I don't and no I don't. Why? And why is this relevant to whether or not buddhism is about an unfiltered awareness of reality?

[Anonymous No.12059160]

>>12059141
Because the passage you literally just quoted equates a higher awareness of reality with the negation of discursion

[Anonymous No.12059178]

>>12059160
Yes, and?

[Anonymous No.12059192]

>>12059178
You deny a higher awareness, but don't deny we can negate thought. Now whether or not the negation of (or at least disidentification with) thought should qualify as a "higher" awareness is something you could only verify through practice, right?

[Anonymous No.12059210]

>>12059192
Why do you think I deny higher awareness? Quote me where I did so please.
Because if by higher awareness you mean clearer(just to define our terms), then I don't.
>higher" awareness is something you could only verify through practice, right?
right

[Anonymous No.12059212]

>>12059210
Well okay then.

[Anonymous No.12059225]

>>12059212
Well that was dumb.
By the way, Buddhism is still about access to the Real and an unfiltered awareness of reality.

[Anonymous No.12059283]

>>12058477
from being long and vehemently attent upon Geometricall Figures, a man shall in the dark, (though awake) have the Images of Lines, and Angles before his eyes: which kind of Fancy hath no particular name; as being a thing that doth not commonly fall into mens discourse.

LEVIATHAN

By Thomas Hobbes

1651

[Anonymous No.12059294]

>>12058222
it does though

[Anonymous No.12059306]

>>12059225
Nope, Buddhism isn't essentialism, the "Real" is defined negatively, as the absence of discursion

[Anonymous No.12059337]

>>12059306
>Buddhism isn't essentialism
Yeah
>the "Real" is defined negatively
So what?
Anon why do you keep making statements that are in no conflict with what I'm saying? This is insane

[Anonymous No.12059349]

>>12059337
Because you're framing Buddhism with the language of substance ontology, of a hidden "essence" or "core" of reality that it provides access to

[Anonymous No.12059360]

>>12059283
based

[Anonymous No.12059376]

>>12059225
But how could it be about that when the countless sects disagree over so much including exactly what Buddha meant when he said something they both agree he said? Not to mention huge swathes of Buddhism deny there is any such thing as reality and will even deny calling this understanding an awareness of reality. The chances of reaching an unfiltered awareness of it through Buddhism is minuscule because statistically speaking your chance of selecting the school who understood his teachings correctly is so tiny. You would have a much better chance going with the texts that Buddha got most of his ideas from, namely the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. I'm just trolling because Buddhist-posters on /lit/ are insufferable but everything I wrote is still 100% true.

[Anonymous No.12059377]

>>12059349
Not even the Buddhist texts avoid referring to it in some manner, with names that will give you wrong impressions too.
Practice is what's important, but when dealing with words the Real will do as good a job as anything else.

[Anonymous No.12059387]

>>12058205
>specially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.12059405]

>>12059376
There's disagreement, but if you read even the the popular stuff like the sutras, Nichiren, or Nagarjuna it's hard to not get the message that you need to do it yourself. I think most branches will agree with that. You need to seek for yourself. That's the best chance you've got, not even the upanishads. Talking about it is going to be unavoidably inadequate.
>I'm just trolling
It's not helping

[Anonymous No.12059473]

>>12058205
you lack the imagination to conceive of anything outside your own experience.

[Anonymous No.12059503]

>>12058770
You’re an idiot. Meditative practices are not always about cultivating extraordinary experiences, they’re precisely about realizing the subjectivity and ephemerality of our impressions, thoughts, and emotions — in fact, a Buddhist who knows what they’re doing will precisely say to ignore such “mystical experiences” and not seek after/cultivate them since they only further delusion about one’s self-nature and cultivate desire, even if it’s a pretty and fun delusion and cool mystical desires.

>>12058205
>>12058923
>Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.
>The whole 'direct experience/awareness' shenanigans.

Actually, your direct awareness of the moment is the only thing that can’t be doubted. You can’t say “this tree has brown bark,” properly speaking, but, “I am perceiving something I call a tree which, at this moment, appears to me to be a color I call brown.” This is not to discount the validity of the scientific method and studying the world as if it were objective and made up of objects, since this can give great practical advances. However, your idiot point misses the point. Neuroscience does not “disprove” “introspection” or “intuition”. If you experience introspection, you are experiencing introspection. The experience is there. These forms of mysticism are not about mystically gaining far-out knowledge, but rather directly paying attention to the fact that we are experiencing something, that there’s awareness here.

Have you ever heard of phenomenology? Phenomenology is a tradition in Western philosophy which gets into all this from its own angle. You seem like an extreme moron, though, if you’re actually being serious, so I would suggest laying off your useless study into Eastern philosophy and just watching TV or something instead.

[Anonymous No.12059528]

>>12059503
Nice.
It's strange to me that this is completely alien for most people.

[Anonymous No.12059530]

>>12059349
The nature of change is expressed in mathematics, phenomenological experience, and metaphysics alike.

Calculus is the mathematical study of change and its basic concept are that of integration and derivation, with the physical intuition of integration being "cumulative change" and derivation being "instantaneous change." These are inverse operations of the same process.

This coincides with two reference frames of change we experience. In the mode of direct experience a singular omnipresent moment is the fixed point of reference, and what is experienced is instantaneous change in this ever-present. In the discursive mode the continuum of time consisting of past, present, and future is the fixed point of reference, comprised of many moments, and what is experienced is cumulative change through time. Alfred North Whitehead describes these two aspects as "presentational immediacy" and "causal efficacy."

An analogy for this is viewing a strip of film as sequential frames vs. watching it as a motion picture. You may privilege the motion picture, but in watching it and making sense of it as a story you are reconstructing the film strip in a way. If you privilege the film strip, there's the fact that it was originally recorded from the "motion picture" of present movement. Neither of these two poles can be separated from each other, they are inextricably interdependent.

As ontologies, privileging the mode of direct experience leads to impermanence being ontologically primary, and the discursive mode privileging (what which persists through time despite cumulative change, i.e. substance, is the real.) Placing permanence and change, being and becoming as equals is the perspective of process philosophy, which is given support by its relation to calculus and the examination of our two basic modes of conscious experience as reference frames - both different perspectives of change, with both necessary to describe experience.

[Anonymous No.12059532]

>>12059503
yup.

[Anonymous No.12059589]

>>12059530
I butchered two sentences here.
>discursive mode privileging (what which persists through time despite cumulative change, i.e. substance, is the real.)
...the discursive mode privileging substance, that which persists through time despite experiencing change.
>both necessary to describe experience.
both equally insistent aspects of experience.

[Anonymous No.12059608]

>>12059530
the coincidence of being and becoming, your film reel analogy, what debord says about the photo/image, and what deleuze also says about plato's fetishization of being planting the seeds for modernity is all coming together in a post that is just too dense for me to write right now. just wanna say your post at least inspired it

[Anonymous No.12059672]

>>12059503

>Actually your direct awareness of the moment is the only thing that can't be doubted

Hmm, strange then that there is a lot of unconscious activity in the brain that we don't have access to

[Anonymous No.12059680]

>>12059672
irrelevant, you don't even understand what the guy is saying

[Anonymous No.12059684]

>>12059672
That’s a complete non-sequitur, if you only realized it. The fact that there is “a lot of unconscious activity in the brain we don’t have access to” is, again, only something which can be experienced, thought.

You’re making a category error. Again, research what “phenemonology” is, maybe you’ll eventually get something.

[Anonymous No.12059701]

>>12059672
what the anon is talking about is precisely the fact there is access to begin with

[Anonymous No.12059853]

>>12059684

What do you mean by 'experienced'?

[Anonymous No.12059868]

>>12059853
the concept of an unconscious can only occur to a consciousness, the idea of nothingness (non-being) can only be internal to something-ness (being), this is Parmenides' whole point and the basis of the understanding of the Buddhist Subject

[Anonymous No.12059918]

>>12059868

interesting

[Anonymous No.12059926]

>>12058477
>Imblying reading a neuroscience article isn’t direct experience

[Anonymous No.12059930]

>>12059918
basically: the more the contingent, "nominal" properties of the self are negated, the more that affirms that which performs the negation, because the nothingness or "emptiness" of the aggregate can only occur to something which is itself distinguished from it

[Anonymous No.12059952]

>>12059930
Is this a fancy way of saying "there's no crests without troughs"?

[Anonymous No.12059960]

>>12058205
Well Zen is interesting because like other Mahayana branches of Buddhism it holds to the concept of Anatta, which is consistent with current neuroscientific and cog sci understandings of Self. Besides this Zen deals with “flow” and the semantic/semiotic/epistemological problems that plague language, similar in many senses to wittgenstein’s early critiques. Heideggarian obsession with existence within-the-world is another current in zen which is extremely distinct from any other spiritual discipline on earth, besides of course Daoism its grandfather tradition. Mahamudra’s ritual orientation and system of esoteric hierarchies attracts people because its much closer to being initiated into a hierophantoc cult than any public religion which is very obviously based in stratification of knowledge and contact with the source of power in the faith. Daoism is just a simple acknowledgement that passivity, and the negative space in all structures and processes can be generative, or at the very least act as a catalyst for the productive forces. They are of course for exhausted types, hardly necessary for someone with out some neuroses or a dysfunctional CNS, bad conscience and worse coordination of their intuition and sense perceptions but still they seem at the very least superior in epistemology and ontology to faith in a personal deity. Obviously you’re correct and its impoverished, nothing will surmount the gap Created between us and truth by the death of God and idealism.

[Anonymous No.12059974]

>>12059952
I like that. Sure.

[Anonymous No.12059986]

>>12059960
>They are of course for exhausted types, hardly necessary for someone with out some neuroses or a dysfunctional CNS, bad conscience and worse coordination of their intuition and sense perceptions but still they seem at the very least superior in epistemology and ontology to faith in a personal deity.

oh please, you ruined an otherwise good post with these insipid "modernist" pathologizations of everything that doesn't deify/reify capitalist productivity

[Anonymous No.12059988]

>>12059974
credit to Alan Watts

[Anonymous No.12060029]

>>12059960

>Nothing will surmount the gap created between us and truth

What leads you to say that?

[Anonymous No.12060113]

>>12059608
Here's some other things you may find useful:
The being-becoming interdependency is reflected in information as queries and content, questions and answers. The fetishization of being describes queries as a lack of answers, passive voids to be filled, when they are active requests for information, searches, quests, vectors of desire.

Becoming-self: a question questioning itself, or self-inquiry.

Being-self: a self-representation relating to itself, the story of the self, the object-self.

Self-awareness: the evolutionary process of self-creation, corresponding to question -> choice/answer -> action, which is analogous to the Darwinian process of variation -> selection -> reproduction. Being-fetishization places choice (the selection of objects from a list of potentials) as primary, resulting in the concept of free will. Questioning is the mutagenic and generative part of this process because lines of inquiry lead to potentialities that choice can select from. However as we can question our questions, reasons, and actions in turn, this process is applied to itself in a three-fold strange loop (see picture.) Consciousness is literally evolution evolved, the creative process folded upon itself to create self-creators. Free will is slavery to the will, our freedom comes from our ability to question our will and from the resulting lines of inquiry change it. Our skill to self-modify over time isn't an absolute but exists within constraints, top-down causation from bottom-up causal influence instead of contra-causal (i.e. magical) liberation despite it. One's self-creative freedom is dependent upon their ability to question themselves and the world around them.

In Deleuzian terms, the cancerous Body without Organs is selection and reproduction without variation, repetition of the same self-similar pattern. The empty BwO is variation/reproduction or question/action without selection and choice, while the full BwO is synergy between the being-self and becoming-self that self-optimizes adaptability and the advancement of novelty.

[Anonymous No.12060122]

>>12059608
>Daoism is just a simple acknowledgement that passivity, and the negative space in all structures and processes can be generative, or at the very least act as a catalyst for the productive forces.
See above, also >>12059530. Process philosophy is very much in line with Daoist philosophy.

>nothing will surmount the gap Created between us and truth by the death of God and idealism.
God is the result of the creator-creation dichotomy that is the result of substance ontology. The death of God eliminated the concept of creator (including human creators) but maintained the orphaned creation-object, and the same deterministic universe completely devoid of creativity. Systems theory and the concept of emergent phenomenon that is ubiquitous in modern science rejects this view. The synthesis of creator and creation is that of creating, of the anarchization of creativity such that all events in the universe are simultaneously created by and create all others as mutually causative. However casual relationships aren't all equal, and so degrees of casual relevance are introduced to allow us to avoid talking about the entire universe all at once to talk about anything at all. Relevance is determined by context, i.e. what one wishes to describe and talk about; an atom across the universe is hardly causally relevant to successfully building a house, for example. The existential implication is that rather than humans creating meaning out of a meaningless universe, human meaning-making is a mutually creative process between the categories of self and other; our lives are relationships between us and existence and all it contains, including each other.

[Anonymous No.12060170]

>>12060113

What has no question and no answer?

[Anonymous No.12060341]

>>12060170
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12060408]

>>12058770
Explain pic related, fully.
Keep in mind two (2) things:
1) there was no anticipation to create the feedback loop
2) TM is just mantra recital

[Anonymous No.12060486]

>The ultimate postmodern irony of today is the strange exchange between Europe and Asia: at the very moment when "European" technology and capitalism are triumphing worldwide at the level of the economic infrastructure, the Judeo-Christian legacy is threatened at the level of "ideological superstructure" in the European space itself by New Age "Asiatic" thought, which, in its different guises ranging from "Western Buddhism" to different "Taos," is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology of global capitalism.

>Therein resides the highest speculative identity of opposites in today's global civilization: although "Western Buddhism" presents itself as the remedy against the stressful tension of capitalist dynamics, allowing us to uncouple and retain inner peace and Gelassenheit, it actually functions as its perfect ideological supplement.

>One should mention here the well-known concept of "future shock" that describes how people are no longer psychologically able to cope with the dazzling rhythm of technological development and the social changes that accompany it. Things simply move too fast, and before one can accustom oneself to an invention, it has already been supplanted by a new one, so that one more and more lacks the most elementary "cognitive mapping." The recourse to Taoism or Buddhism offers a way out of this predicament that definitely works better than the desperate escape into old traditions. Instead of trying to cope with the accelerating rhythm of techno-logical progress and social changes, one should rather renounce the very endeavor to retain control over what goes on, rejecting it as the expression of the modern logic of domination. One should, instead, "let oneself go," drift along, while retaining an inner distance and indifference toward the mad dance of accelerated process, a distance based on the insight that all this social and technological upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our being.
>One is almost tempted to resuscitate the old infamous Marxist cliché of religion as the "opium of the people," as the imaginary supplement to terrestrial misery. The "Western Buddhist" meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in capitalist dynamics while retaining the appearance of mental sanity. If Max Weber were alive today, he would definitely write a second, supplementary, volume to his Protestant Ethic, entitled The Taoist Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.12060487]

>>12058205
It doesn't matter if introspection and intuition are wrong, they do have some inner consistency and life. Describing something materially has nothing to do with your personal experience and possible changes within it. Although, I would say that most everything is pretty much just uncontrollably biological and has nothing to do with your 'mind'.

[Anonymous No.12060509]

>>12060486
Newsflash: zizek's a tard

[Anonymous No.12060520]

>>12058315
>real shit
Reality doesn't exist, existence is merely perceptibility

[Anonymous No.12060528]

>>12060408
>there was no anticipation to create the feedback loop.
False. He expected to experience a "spiritual event," and he got it. It's basically self-hypnosis, and he conditioned himself to be open to his own suggestions - along with perhaps a predisposition to being open to suggestion.
That he experienced sexual arousal when focusing on his genitals just confirms that he is doing what I am describing. I can induce physical pleasure and orgasm using the same means.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/how-your-mind-protects-you-against-hallucinations

>These examples suggest hallucinations arise when the brain gives more weight to its expectations and beliefs about the world than to the sensory evidence it receives

[Anonymous No.12060533]

>>12060487
Also,
there is nothing illusory or fake about your subjective experience, it is all you are. Doesn't mean you can infer 'truth', but then, truth becomes somewhat of a non-concept. There's no reason to not explore your experience directly, probing and befriending, through many avenues.

[Anonymous No.12060553]

>>12059294
t. delusional

[Anonymous No.12060629]

>>12059986
You are stupid
>>12060029
Humans are physical systems largely driven by molecular interactions, there is an extremely limited amount of space and time that any human has available for sorting, encoding and abstracting information. As things stand the Earth system is dying rapidly, and our technological progress has come to a relative halt compared to the industrial revolution, with extreme degeneration of political stability and looming ecocide putting any sort of leap forward in information processing or physics largely out of our reach. The universe is so vast as to make even the most powerful hypothetical computing systems impotent in the face of the seething abyss of cosmic phenomena. Whatever we have accomplished here is for all intents and purposes meaningless as we'll be wiped out many hundreds of millions of years before a strong picture of most physical processes is reached by the empirical sciences. There are other problems but these are the most pressing, if they did not exist then language, and the philosophical intractability of interpretation and consciousness (not that it exists, but the mediation of whatever it is with it, the illusion) would cause us extreme difficulties. I'm just not really optimistic any of these things can be dealt with before we are annihilated by natural forces.
>>12060122
I'm not interested in Daoism or process philosophy I was just replying to the OP regarding the attraction of Eastern schools of thought. Wasn't even affirming them or giving credence to their ontology anon.
>God is the result of the creator-creation dichotomy that is the result of substance ontology
No God is an artifact of language and Ape phenomenology.
>The death of God eliminated the concept of creator (including human creators) but maintained the orphaned creation-object
That's not a problem
>devoid of creativity
the very notion of creativity is virtually meaningless, nothing is created or destroyed in thermodynamics and humans are just organic systems. We are nothing more than mechanics dancing with itself blindly.
>Systems theory and the concept of emergent phenomenon that is ubiquitous in modern science rejects this view
You don't know what you're talking about and are doing what every single pseud from the 20th century did when they got cold feet from the immediate harshness of an ontology without substance and without spirit. There is no reason to believe that all things are emergent phenomena, it trivializes the word, and that concept is just a phrase used to better explain purely mathematical models of "complex systems" which are extremely difficult to model using reductionist logic. That's not an affirmation of a transcendental or immanent force behind matter and energy or some kind of guiding principle in consciousness and history.

Your post is ill conceived and dependent on axioms I don't share with you. You're playing games in shadows and back alleys trying to bait me into agreeing with you.

[Anonymous No.12060751]

>>12060629
materialism can't account for internality, which is the same thing as saying it can't account for the reflexivity of its statements. and the doctrine of "no-self" does not exist, anatta is an adjective and anglos were a mistake

[Anonymous No.12060757]

>>12060629
>Your post is ill conceived and dependent on axioms I don't share with you. You're playing games in shadows and back alleys trying to bait me into agreeing with you.

[Anonymous No.12060883]

>>12060629
nigga it’s very clear from posts like this that you are not nearly as smart or as well read as you’d like to think you are. you could probably do well to LURK MORE FAGGOT and think through obviously well-thought out posts like Dao/Deleuze anon. Also thernodynamics- invoking physicalism is so 1950s dude cmon.

[Anonymous No.12060894]

>>12058205
>Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.

This is just a part of an ongoing campaign by leftists to socially engineer people into ignoring their natural reactions towards dangers.

[Anonymous No.12060904]

The way the world is it the only way it could ever possibly be and it only seems like one arbitrary option out of many to you because you are a part of it yourself

[Anonymous No.12060933]

>>12060629
>World is a fuck, everything's gonna die, and we're all dust in the wind.
Badass if you live authentically by this and experience the hell of it in full, instead of resorting to hedonism / partyboat nihilism. That shit is pumping some serious existential weight if you do. Gonna see some gainz if you don't kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.12061244]

oh

[Anonymous No.12061274]

>>12060894

Humans can have a tendency to see dangers that aren't actually there.

[Anonymous No.12061285]

>>12060904

Interesting.

[Anonymous No.12061691]

>>12060933

nothing wrong with hedonism

[Anonymous No.12061769]

>>12060904
yes

[Anonymous No.12061823]

>>12058205
leftover "oh muh ancient mystic eastern philosophy" sentiment from the hippies. that combined with a fetish for anime and asian women, and being socially unsuccessful within the confines of their own culture due to not fully understanding their own culture, they turn to a less developed and simpler humanism in order to simultaneously escape as well as attempt to distinguish themselves.

[Anonymous No.12061846]

>Especially when neuroscience has shown that introspection and intuition aren't that reliable and can be mistaken.

lmao

[Anonymous No.12061850]

>>12061823
>buddhism, daoism, etc. is humanist

AHAHAAH

[Anonymous No.12062140]

>>12061823
Christfag who makes up for his own shortcomings by basking in reflecting glory detected.

[Anonymous No.12062169]

Taoism is sentient

[Anonymous No.12062229]

Damn came too late. Fuck reading all that.

[Anonymous No.12062246]

>>12060528

the idea that neuroscience has completely figured the brain out, and therefore there is no need for spirituality should be enough to send you straight to the loony bin yourself

furthermore, the pervasive idea that a scientific explanation for a particular phenomena is always an actual description of the phenomena is even more retarded. there isn't any need for us to be nice about it. thinking that you're superior to great spiritual masters of the past just because you have a machine that can partially observe phenomena that happens in the brain is the height of hubris

[Anonymous No.12062260]

>>12062140
What's your favorite anime?

[Anonymous No.12062288]

>>12062246
hot picture

[Anonymous No.12062294]

>>12058205
Neuroscience has show the complete opposite, brainlet.
Different meditation and introspection practices do insane things for the brain that baffle scientists

[Anonymous No.12062296]

>>12062169
Brahman is sentient

[Anonymous No.12062299]

>>12062246
What gives those masters their status? How can we judge true masters from woo?

[Anonymous No.12062311]

>>12060883
>hink through obviously well-thought out posts like Dao/Deleuze anon

1) Deleuze as well as Deleuze-anon are complete morons

2) All (or 98%) of the Daoist posters on 4chan are midwits who don't understand Daoism.

[Anonymous No.12062318]

>>12058205
Because it's easier to read a bunch of chink nonsense and feel special because of MUH CONSCIOUSNESS DOOD! than a study a (based and redpilled) neuroscience book. Le eastern wisdom is for limp-wristed soifaggots.

[Anonymous No.12062572]

>>12062299

you should know, since you've read every valuable work that they have to offer

[Anonymous No.12062617]

>>12062318
>chink nonsense
>not understanding that the true Indo-European intellectual heritage was only preserved in the east and that most of western thought is irredeemably influenced by Jewish ideas

yikes

[Anonymous No.12062781]

>>12062311
>hink
oh and yes you clearly illustrate your illustrious knowledge of the dao k retarded bro