This idea has been coalescing for some time, I think I can put words on it. Maybe it can be of use or you'll point to something.

Often when debating a topic one or both parties will make illogical arguments to defend a point of view. This if often heard as lack of intelligence, lack of communication skills, lack of editing, confusion, misunderstanding, emotion etc. I'll propose another reason - if someone's identity conforms to a particular view then a negation of that view is felt as an attack on the person's self. Attachment to that identity can be stronger than an ability for logical reasoning, in that case self perservation wins over logic and the person adopts an illogical position.

When someone identifies with a view then changing that view requires changing identity. For the self to be perceived as permanent it needs a coherent narritive. So changing identity is not something that happens easily because there is a risk of exposing the impermanence of the self. This leads to a life and death situation, if the self changes it is somewhat like dieing. Sacrificing objective reasoning to continue living is a reasonable behavior.

I think this is seen in threads on DhO and other forums. When someone is posting about a view that they identify as self then if that view is confronted as illogical or unreasonable the debate often spirals into a waste of time. Reading between the lines there is at least one person who is defending their very existence and in the case where both are doing this then the conversation gets very ugly. 

If one can see that identity is an attachment to views then one has a path to deconstructing identity and making serious inroads to understanding non-self. By changing one's views (ideally for views that are more useful) the identity is loosened. 

Consider the view like a mask or a role that one might play, it is of great practical value to be able to adopt an appropriate role in a situation. If one is attached to a view then one cannot choose a different role. So if one is a "sensitive" person one cannot manage certain situations well, or if one is an "argumentative" person then one will tend to argue at inappropriate times etc.

This flies in the face of popular wisdom to "find oneself" to be "authentic" to be "true to oneself" etc. That popular wisdom is seen for what it is - a reinforcement of the self. By experimenting with different views one could realize there are only masks i.e. there is no permanent or true self. It becomes clear that there are always views, there is always personality, but there is not a permanent self.

One of the most dangerous views is that of spirituality. The very practise of liberation is a view of the self. The self has managed to hi-jack the practise and can comfortably hide in plain sight as an awakened/awakening person.

While reading a thread on DhO watch for reactions. Any strong reaction is pointing to a view that is either in resonance or conflcit with your own. Explore that view, can you get to a point where that reaction is no longer strong - you have liberated a little bit of yourself.

If someone can't follow your logic then hear that alarm bell. Here's hoping that makes sense!

All good stuff, Mark. Effectively what you've written is a practical explanation of diṭṭhāsava, the fourth āsava which in some places is added to the original three.

And sometimes folks just aren't always willing or able to spend the time to really investigate something, so they argue about what they think the other person is saying. Then it's even easier to get tied up in seeing an argument as an attack on the self.

This is an interesting area of inquiry

Hi Derek, thanks for the pointer. I googled ditthasava and did not find much, the most detail was here http://www.bps.lk/olib/bl/bl035-p.html If you have some better references please let me know. From what I can gather you are correct.

That's because your explanation is better than anything in the texts!

Hence, calling buddhist science of mind a practice.

Easy to write out instructions, hard to walk the talk continuously & increasingly advising just the person in the mirror -- what an epic terrain.

And compassion for natural conditions (including own mind, own animal being) that undermine pat lessons.

Bravo. Ive had this opinion for a long time. Ppl like arguing more than the danger of truth.  I personally am too desperate for truth not to kill the buddha if I meet him on the road.

Just adding FYI stuff.

http://www.bcbsdharma.org/2012-8-31-insight-journal/

This is an interesting phenomenon, one that can be seen in almost every daily human interaction.  I think the core root of it all is the personality view, the attachment to some idea of a permanent non-changing personality. This causes constant conflict, and even stress, as a person is constantly self referencing phenomenon around them.  For instance, thinking people are thinking about them, lokking at them beacause maybe they did something, etc, but usually everyone is in their own little personality view worlds, oblivious to others, yet, they too trapped in the thinking phenomenon is happening all in relation to them.  This is not the case for everyone, and I probably have not explained this very well?  But, is all that in itself just another view?

One way , which is interesting to practice, which I have not done for a long time, excerpt explanation below.  But, is is indeed interesting, and shows , to oneself, just how silly all the ideas and belief systems are, yet paradoxically, they can all be believed by the mind anyway.  This is not to say that a person may or may not derive benefit from any particular method over any other particular method, system, philosophy, or belief.  Some, just go , deeper, farther, and all that.  But, that is probably just another view.

And I am not suggesting anyone practice what is listed below, but just throwing it out there, FYI.  
http://www.llewellyn.com/journal/article/1799

Hi Katy,

I'm sure I've seen people give advice for very selfish reasons and also not give advice for very selfish reasons. I could have used the first person in that quote which might make it easier for others to listen to. But then the intention would still be the same. Maybe better to focus on getting feedback and not talk about applying the concept ?

I'm not sure what you mean by pat lesson (maybe predictable or obvious?) Can you elaborate ?

Well, maybe you're different. For some people, it comes easily to pen tidy concepts and then advise others on those writings; the obvious old standard is who can walk their own talk over time and changing conditions?


Okay. To me, you're often thoughtful in your language. It was remarkable to me to see you advising others in the imperative.. the "understood you".


That is an obvious question arising with instructional language: Does/will the instructor do their lesson well? Do they live their imperatives or say them? 

As anyone who has ever emailed something in the imperative tone knows, I question it. I question when I, too, use it or the 'royal' we.  

There is identity and feeling showing up in speech or we wouldn't have these alternate ways of expression, no?

I mentioned it has taken quite a while for that idea to get to a point where I could put it in words, it feels like a fairly hard won insight (and maybe that shows in the post). I would say it goes back at least several months when I was getting more interested in Jung's shadow work (part of that encourages looking at emotional reactions for personality insights) and then an interest in non-buddhism which challenges a number of my views combined with some heated discussion about dependent origination with more time on the cushion lately.


Good on you for pulling me up on it. I think there was a desire for other people here to try what I suggested - because I see so many discussions where people are talking past each other. But it is probably much more a personal desire to have discussions with people who behave in that way.


I certainly don't want the role of instructor and that was not the intention. It was more like excitement "wow this really makes a lot of sense" so "you should try it too!".

But to answer your question, yes I do tend to do that, I try to back off the keyboard when there is a strong negative or positive reaction. Hopefully that is why you think "you're often thoughtful in your language". I don't think I am any good with langauge but I try to be thoughtful about what I post here.  [edit: happy to have you catch me out when I don't do it too - thanks!]


For sure, people usually show a lot more that what they realize.  

I'm not convinced you jump in whenever there are posts on DhO with an imperitive tone there are a huge number!). I am guessing there is something particular about this topic, me or some other context that motivated you to jump in. But we don't need to go there, I'm happy to take a lesson learnt and try more to ask questions instead of proposing answers.

Same here.


You are totally right. Sometimes I feel people need that hubris and to be identifying as an instructor/knower/high claimant and that self-identify is needed in some self-protective way. So when someone has that, in my questionable view, I try to stay away.

I think I have seen repeatedly that there is a hard mental place where one can exist in a needed sense of superiority due to being quite fragile. So to me it seems like a good time to stay away or wait for some comment I can support and show thanks for. 

When someone seems well at ease with, but challenging themselves, then if it comes up that I see something arising about which I have a question as to the reliablity then it is almost never the narrative frame that I question, but the surrounding conduct. It is like looking at a resume and then saying, "What is this knowledge attested here and how can I see it demonstrated, not re-narrated?" 

Why would I do that? We are on a particular community forum of investigating selfhood and I participate.


Not from any position from a high or low vantage to validate you (that is the benefit of reliable insight; no one needs to confirm it..), but still.. nice!

For myself I would add on three words: "in that instance."



And then I add and ask myself, "How is that conclusion reliable in any circumstance, like the hard cirsumstance of trying to move one's family away from war/drought/starvation***? What is worth knowing in such a condition?"

This is not to endlessly kick the tires with wild hypotheticals, but to ask "What understanding is reliable in very common human conditions? If a child had to mirror my understanding, would I feel they mirrored something useful in the hardest of conditions." I find it's a useful challenge and stuns conceit.

Edit x2
Edit***: and also what is likewise worth mirroring in great times. For example, many people show their children generosity and service to share their good fortune (aka: generosity, altrusim, or even Kropotkin's "mutual aid")

My understanding of no self definition is that there is no permanent UNCHANGING self.  From what I have seen of society, change in self is expected, kids grow to adults, it is hoped the high school football player will grow up, get a job, etc.  One might hope that children grow past the concerns for lack of chocalate milk option at lunch and no longer heap worry onto getting gyped out of the best flavor of lollipop.  And granted, many adult arguments are strangely similar to kindergarten arguments except with fancier words (think politics!), still, society does expect humans to grow and change and hopefully evolve.  So although I do agree that people often seem to defend ideas as if they are holding the as part of self identity (and they probably are), I am not sure if such is needed to defend against realizing no self of the aforementioned definition.  But if you are using a more extreme definition, well then yeah, could be.  For some reason, change is hard, that seems common, and sometimes or often is vigorously defended against.  ALthough I don't think that I believe in an unchanging self, that self will change over time seems obvious to me at this point, but yet I still find it hard to change or let go of clingings sometimes.  If I am defending against something specific and singular with my clingings, I am not sure what it is.   
Yes, once emotions overrule logic, then it can get ugly if the emotions are ugly. 
Yes, beware the labels you might attach to self would be my advice because the more you cling to a label, the more limiting and defining it becomes.   If the label has negative connotations, then all the worse.  I might have saved myself a lot of trouble if I had figured this out sooner.  
Not sure if I agree.  Those words are sort of vague to start with but often refer to knowing yourself better, not blindly following the words of others in power or accepting what is on tv without question, etc.  Which I think generally is good advice.  It doesn't specifically mean calling yourself 'sensitive' and then using that as an excuse to fly off the handle often or any such thing.  I also don't think from what I have seen, that people typically can develop all in a few seconds, seems like it always takes a long somewhat spiralling path of development.  The lesson you need to learn today may not be th elesson you need to learn tomorrow, but today's lesson prepares you for tomorrow.  A teacher will typically lead a student through the progression instead of just slamming down the final lesson and skipping all the rest.  Thus I suspect a lesson may be like training wheels, helpful at one stage but potentially a hindrance at a later stage.  LIke they say that stuff that worked to get people to 3rd path are not what works to get them to 4th path.  Not that 3rd path lessons are bad all the time, they are good when the timing is right for them.  Such I think also is true with many cliches like 'find yourself.'  If 'find yourself' is better than what you were doing as an alternative, it can IMO, be a good lesson.  But it's just not the end of the lessons, you will eventually need to progress further.        
Well there are a lot of traps, not sure if any particular one is the worst although it may be one that Buddhist types are more likelyt o fall into.  ;-P
I agree, does that person bug you, something about how it was written bug you?  You may be tempted to assign blame to the poster (certainly easy for me to do too) but IMO it can only bug you if you have a weak spot there that triggers the response.  Clean up your weak spots and suddenly that person won't bug you anymore as if by magic! 
Well it could also mean the poster is not a good communicator!  ;-P  But I think I know what you mean, if someone gets all upset and can't be rational, probably they have a landmind there.  Can't do much about others though, but much more useful is if you notice yourself getting emotoinal and/or irrational, then you can stand to learn a lot about your own landminds if you dare.  ;-P 

Perhaps you perceive a risk of establishing a hierarchy if you listen to that person. It requires the instructor to see themselves as instructor and the student to see themselves as student. By choosing not to take on the role of student you stop that relationship without needing to ignore the information that person professes. Often someone's view is a mixed bag, it is not all good or all bad, if the entire view is discarded because of one point e.g. a reference to marxism or a superior tone then this can be a way of avoiding uncomfortable truths.


The concept of the shadow is fascinating in regards to this. It points to what you highlight, someone who projects superiority is very likely doing that because it is a mechanism to suppress a sense of inferiority. Likewise a strong reaction to someone who projects superiority is also probably pointing to something. I really like the expression: when you point the finger there are three fingers pointing back at you.


I see it more like a pattern recognition process that is not being reinforced. It is not just relevant in that instance. It is like chipping away at something. For example not getting emotional on a forum is obviously a lot easier than not getting annoyed in face to face interactions. But someone who can't manage their emotions on a forum is almost certainly unable to deal well with face to face situations.

I see that can help put things in perspective. Consider the ability to not get attached to a view/role, if someone goes through a very difficult period they have probably been in an environment that imposed a negative self image. Someone has more options if they don't "buy into" that identity/view. Being attached to identity must make adaptation harder.

I'm surprised you did not see this so I'm wondering if I've missed your point.

This sentence, Noah S. , is one that raises doubt because it's not substantiated nor defined, just asserted.
 
That's okay, anyone can opine strongly, but what is the truth, what is the danger, and which people, how many, where, when did you survey them?


Here is the definition of dogmaticism from Google: 

And here from Merriam Webster:

I take it to mean there is no permanent changing self too.


I think the perceptions we have of the self are used to infer things that are not true. One of the things we do is infer about the self from the views we habitually adopt. Seeing the views as views is one small step to seeing the self without inferring something false.


Neither am I! I can see some relation between change and death, change can be seen like a very small aspect of the self dying.



Yes I was getting a bit carried away there...

I appreciate the quote you pulled from John Peacock (2012 BCBS), "Psi".

I can see that people from many different views do incredibly well together when working on a common problem which affects everyone. I worked in one massive trauma event and, boy, nobody gave two hoots about each other's views. It was about care during massive trauma. 

So while identity can be a really wonderful line of self-inquiry, like Eva noted, I wouldn't malign any "spiritual" view or "authentic self". I know it can fun on this forum to talk about Alain Baidou and Zizek and Metzinger and so on and other intellectuals, but I'll tell you I also love what Oprah Winfrey has and does do with her platform: she strongly encourages people to take their talk into the long-term, skillful action of co-creating wonderful communities without dogmaticism. She often speaks just for herself, "To me, I try to do.."

This is morning I'm reading about our community's homelessess, lotta children and parents basically young and having made some poor choices which leave them unresilient to environmental rough patches (e.g., economy), and, of course, once again, cold weather is just around the bend. Also elderly with no way to earn more their keep anymore.

Do I care the views of the one who hosts a food pantry and gives away food? No.
Do I care the views of the one who offers a clean apartment to get people out of their cars or infested and crime plagued motel rooms? No.
Do I care if a recovery and life-skills program is hosted by a spiritual group? Nope.

What I care about is, wow, here are effective people who see what can happen with human groups in the presence of care and non-care.

If I don't engage this in doable doses while I'm young, I sure can't expect a community of care to be developing when I'm old/sick.
Knowing the condition of being alive, care for and non-exploitation of one another is something I find is incredibly smart to develop day over day.


But, from just the vantage of what this DhO forum is often about --- sometimes selfhood investigation and how one lives/does/views, often in a buddhist philosophical context --- I also like (for what it's worth as just a peer practitioner here) what Mark is working on with idenity view and effects. I thought"Psi"'s article from  Peacock was a useful 'bookend' to Mark's post.

editx2

Hi Katy,

That makes it sound like you care for others because you want to be cared for when you're old and sick. 

Would you still do those good things if you didn't expect a reward?

Hi Eva,

Did you intend to reply to me (I don't follow your thoughts) or to Noah--- you've excepted Noah's speech tho not given him credit.



Hi C C C:

Nope, I don't expect anything in return for doing things I feel are basically helpful human values. And people have shared a lot with me without any expectation or exchange.

There's a difference between dana, mutual aid/altruism and the like. I referred to each, but I feel personally that dana (just giving, just sharing)(by different names in other traditions, like "generosity") is an excellent mindset to develop in the human species. Many cultures and traditions already do. 

My impression fo Buddhist theory is that right thought leads to right action and without right thought, action can be a mixed bag of sometimes maybe not so right.  I have certainly worked with charities where the ego and attitude were huge on the part of some and very very distracting to the overall causes.  I remember one time that I worked for a group that was refurbishing living spaces for the poor and the leader woudl spend a lot of time bragging about how many materials she got HOme Depot to donate, squandered the materials without concern for the donation, ordered people around rudely, was disorganized and wasted a lot of our time with changing her mind midstream, and did not even bother to say thank you to those who spent many hours trying to help.  All the while she bragged about how much She got done when the did not do any of the hard labor herself.  The whole thing was a big ego trip for her.  I can only guess how many people she drove away from the work by being so difficult to deal with.  While that may be an extreme example, it shows what can happen when action does not come out of right thought.  And IMO, action is more effective the more if comes from right thought.  So I do respect the Buddhist tradition of emphasis on development of right thought. 

As for apparent disappearing of squabbles in the face of greater problems, yes that does happen but IMO it is because bigger problems distract from smaller problems.  However, is the smaller problems have not been dealt with, they have just been avoided.  People avoid dealing with smaller problems in a variety of ways including work, meditation, playing sports (concentration), working on or worrying about other people's problems, etc.  And while none of those things are bad by themselves, if overly used as constant distractors from one's own problems, then they are a good way to avoid development when set up in a way such that they keep people always deflected from self insight.  I think that's why in Buddhism, although right action is important, the main emphasis is on pointing attention directly internally first and foremost.

I was watching the TV show 'Alone' the other day (ah yes, TV, the great distractor!) where various survivalists were left each alone in parts of the forest to survive, the one who managed to stay the longest to win a hoard of cash. The ones who stayed longest (winner stayed 56 days) spoke a lot about how the psychology of it was so hard as time passed because there were no distractions of civilization to keep the mind busy so that their minds would spend a lot of time thinking about themselves, their lives, etc.  They were forced ot go deep into themselves.  There were no other people interaction to distract them from themselves.  (whereas with most other survival shows, they are either shorter term or there are pairs or groups of humans together).  Made me think about all the distractions I have in my life daily, all the many things that are outward directed vs inward. The situation we have today is quite different from several hundred years ago when there were fewer distractions intense enough to distract from self.  We used to have a lot more 'busy work' of low mental intensity where the mind had more time to reflect.  Now even when tired, we can turn to tv and become wisked away from ourselves with almost no effort on our part.  
-Eva   

HI Eva,

That would have been disappointing to me, too, to work with someone rude and wasteful anywhere, including your experience with a charitable organization. It sounds like now you get to work on the detail of yourself (like "right thought") as you prefer and to relax with the television.

Best wishes.

Hi Mark,


That's a speculation that I don't feel, but I understand you're trying to relate in your way to my thought.


Yup, me, too.


Okay. I've had a different experience, that face-to-face meeting has been friendly, even were there's been some testiness online.  So I speculate one can get more into their heads by communicating through words on the internet absent the full experience of in-person rapport. 


Yep, who has time for that? There're large societal and environmental needs blooming, right now, any newspaper will show, and it seems like an all-hands-on-deck opportunties, deemed titles/roles aside trumped naturally by helpful skills. 

One might get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that your words were meant as a sideways insult to me personally.  At no point was I saying not to do charity work.  I was only explaining why I think Buddhism so strongly emphasizes right thought seemingly over action at times and how distractions in their many forms can interfere with development of right though if taken too far.  And I certainly did not suggest people should watch more tv, only that I that I learned or thought of something interesting from that particular show that one time.  TV, like many things, has both advantages and disadvantages. 
-Eva

Well, you can take me at my word (or not). And anyone, you, can speculate a sideways..

At my word, speaking for me, I am happy people can kick back and watch a show it they like, like you mentioned you do, or work on the identity stuff that interests you. And just as I said, "That would have been disappointing to me, too, to work with someone rude and wasteful anywhere, including your experience with a charitable organization."

And, again, best wishes.

I wonder what you feel drives the reaction ? But I'm being nosey

The sorts of people who write on these forums An eco-warrior is perhaps going to be more successful if she can relate to other views etc. There is a pressure to act and I see some people act in ways that seem motivated by ego more than results. I guess you are pointing to a temptation to avoid action by focusing on self. Both approaches seem problematic.

My impression is that western buddhist practises tend to individualism for a great many people. I suspect this is because buddhism has been integrated into society and not (yet?) challenged it.

 

Interesting idea, can you expand on it a tad?  Does Buddhism challenge society more in other places?  

I've read your re-action =]

So it means when you write,
Mark: "Perhaps you perceive a risk of establishing a hierarchy if you listen to that person,"
Katy: "That's a speculation that I don't feel, but I understand you're trying to relate in your way to my thought." 

..I just mean what I wrote: I don't perceive a risk in my listening to "that person". (Did you have a person in mind?) 

A friend recommended this to me through their friend ( a free class at MIT online: "Transforming Business, Society, and Self with U.Lab"  Maybe you'll attend and re-act with class? These online classes are great sources of lots of views and ideas and challenging one's own sense of views.

Well, I haven't seen eco-warriers here yet, but I'd welcome them like anyone else who minds the very broad DhO guidelines.
Have you seen anybody come here labeling themselves as such, though, or are you calling someone specifically that? 

And, yeah, one has to find practical, welcome plans across views. And, you as well, some day, despite your thoughts of spirituality up thread, you may find yourself (or already have and do) working with people and "spirituality" whom you thoroughly enjoy and benefit with.

So I share the point you make that it can be "perhaps more successful" for he/"she"/you/me to relate to other views.

Yep, I agree. To take actions without reflection and understanding can cause a lot of trouble.

And to spend so much time on self-reflection can cause myopic ideation and self-centeredness.

And these are just two views. Taking some actions without reflecting can also just be a spontaneous joy and the deep dive with self can be a fine way to live and disturb no one. I see more than "both" and more that "problematic" but get your point (excerpted) I think.

So it looks helpful when people are able to cultivate "both". I would say this thread does that: you reflected, you shared, people reflected, they shared, a bit of acting and re-acting over a bit of time.. 

Yep, I've seen that in myself and others. It seems part of the human condition and dynamism of our species' potential: self needs/wants/gratifications and Other.

With connectivity, anyone of us can today see a glimpse of the utmost hardships happening to sentients around the planet (water, food, care, habitat, life/livelihood..) there's a whole lot of room for generosity, skills, open minds, pratically, mutual respect and awareness. And I see a lot of people giving exactly those skillful generous remedies.

Sometime the buddhist view of "dukkha" is not translated as "stress", but as a misfit wheel and axel (Gombrich), making for an unavoidbably unsmooth ride.


editx1

Oop sorry, I think I meant to respond to Noah if I copied out his words only.  Sometimes I confuse myself when trying to wrangle the word processing formatting. 

np
I can relate.

Sorry, I was referring to the original motivation in this thread - the reaction to the style of writing.

Agreed.
It would be great if there were more practises that worked with the inter-subjective, it seems to be missing in most of the western buddhism I've seen. There are certainly examples of action too. But overall it has me wondering about the effectiveness of the practises. 

So that's interesting. What does "inter-subjective" [1] mean to you? Is this like "interbeing"-- as in Thich Naht Hahn's Order of Interbeing?


Ah. When people tell other people what to do out-of-the-blue, even in imperative poems I'm sent,  as I mentioned earlier, this language form invites, for me, the question of "Why does the speaker think they are qualified to advice? Let me see how long they have practiced in action their advice?"

Also, as I said before, it is easier to talk the talk (this takes just the time to post or speak, for example, on a single occasion or week or some limited time), while walking the walk takes a good deal more mindulness and conviction to sustain through action based on the talk, though time and different condititions. 

Therefore, with a new instructor on a new advice, like your thread opening post using the imperative language to advise others, I think "Through what conditions has he applied this advice and since when?"

And so, to me, when one is leading by example of action, including thoroughly testing of the instructions --- this action and testing precedes advising and makes for a valuable instructor. To me.

Just like in school, it's great to have a teacher who knows their subject well, year after year, through changing teaching trends and demographics. 

And further my two favorite teachers for dharma, even when I have asked to be instructed by them, their language remains conditional (like, "Well, I would consider this..") or personal ("Here's what I have tried that worked..").

So if the imperative voice suits you, fine by me. I asked you about it and you replied.

______________________
edit [1] Here is wikipedia's lead definition: Intersubjectivity is a term used in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology to represent the psychological relation between people. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being.

If this is what you mean, could you describe what you'd experience if Western buddhism worked with the inter-subjective? [Again, you wrote: "It would be great if there were more practises that worked with the inter-subjective, it seems to be missing in most* of the western buddhism I've seen."]

*And I would add if you haven't surveyed Western Buddhism, the to say most of it does or does not have something is a view, not a fact, so I personally read your view, knowing it is without evidence, knowing it to be subjective, a subjective view I have not taken.

Closer to the way it is defined in Ken Wilber's Integral Theory. But some of what I've been reading lately would take the concept further to the point where we can question if there is anything that is purely subjective. As if the subjective is contained within the inter-subjective.


I'm struggling to get this concept across to you. I understood your rationalization of your behaviour but my question is what is going on that triggers that behaviour. There is something within you that reacts strongly to it. No big deal but interesting given the subject of the thread.


Yeah I do assume that people here don't need every phrase qualified**. If I write "it is a fact that ...." then you can assume there is a lot more to it than an opinion. I assume people are stating opinions unless they provide references, proofs etc. Maybe you have a list of people on DhO who you believe state facts but I'd be wary of that.

Do you mean to say that you believe most western buddhist practitioners have a strong inter-subjective aspect to their practise ? It would be great to hear what you have in mind as the practises.

[**edit: I did write "western buddhism I've seen" so I'm seeing you reacting to something other than what I wrote, fascinating stuff]

Hi Eva,

There are certainly cultures where Buddhism has become a major social force e.g. Tibet, Burma, Thailand. I would assume that in those societies there was a revolution (maybe not a violent one or a fast one) that allowed Buddhism to dominate over what was previously taking it's place. 

I think indiviualism is stronger in the "west" and I suspect Buddhism has played into that more than challenged it.

All right, well, maybe you'll take this up:


Well, Mark, I have already mentioned I replied because I participate and told you why now in two replies, so you might be struggling with my view, which I'll add, to me, is not a strong reaction. I used to dialog and debate and this is how it works, following up on points. Sooo.. I can't offer you a deeper answer or view and it's okay if you think there is one.


Well, I do question people in my life who make use of unevidenced conclusions like "Most XYZ are ABC.."  This kind of false recruitment of a ghost-majority can be a source of otherization to self-serve. But, again, go for it if you need it.

Personally, I like to enjoin people who are okay with the facts of what's known and what is not known and also self-correcting as we learn new practical facts. 

editx2 format

My impression of his question was what do you think is different about you that causes you to take issue with those kinds of statements when most here just don't seem to mind it?  And it's certainly not that I always agree with those people.  If I disagree, I will jump in and say I don't agree for various reasons.   I just don't interpret their writing style to be the way you seem to interpret it, such that I feel the urge to write that multiple persons doing it should change their writing style. So I interpreted Mark's question to be why is it do you think that you react differently to that style of writing than most other people?  You have elaborated on what thoughts are in your head at the time but I interpreted Mark's question to be why do you think you have those particular kinds of thoughts when most others don't?  For instance, although that particular writing style is not a trigger for me, I do have other things that tend to trigger me in particular.  On reflection, there can be some interesting historical and personality issues that are likely reasons why those specific things are triggers for me personally and not others.  Of course, some things can be rather personal so it might be a bit tricky to ask or answer such things of near total strangers on the public internet.  However, such avenues of exploration are often fruitful areas of insight.  I interpreted Mark's early posting in this thread to be talking in part about this type of personal inquiry into self motivation and exploring the deepest roots behind various personal tendencies
-Eva

Are you guys talking about people writing in an imperative tone, and about people reacting in an imperative tone?  I guess I do not really see that kind of thing so much, or if I do I pay it no mind.  Anything I have ever read on this site comes into my mind as a suggestion, I never realy take anything anyone says as an order to do something, or things should be done this way or that way.  I do see that some suggestions have more wisdom than other suggestions.  And I have debated many issues here myself, even when I see both sides, sometimes I just like to point out other points of views, just for fun and games.  Just because someone does not agree does not mean they do not understand what a person is saying.

If I am considered to be an Imperator, I now command everyone to practice The Four Supreme Efforts and drop down and give me 20 pushups and 10 burpees!

Well, don't just sit there, get going!

Psi hums Imperial Death March 

Eva's reply explains in more detail what I'm trying to point toward. I'll add that your view seems to be adopted as an identity "I can't offer a deeper answer" is similar to saying "I just am the way I am" or "I am that view". This is getting to the core of the "insight" I was trying to point to. As Eva mentions it may be too personal and that would be perfectly understandable.



This is fascinating given the subject of the thread. You accused me of stating "Most XYZ are ABC.." but the fact is I stated "seems to be missing in most of the western buddhism I've seen". That is a very qualified statement "seems" implies I am not sure, "I've seen" implies it is only an observation of the buddhism I have been in contact with. It is in no way a blanket statement as you would like it to be. You read something that was not there and misquoted me so it would fit with your view. I pointed out the fact that you had misquoted me and you replied again misrepresenting what I wrote. This is exactly what I'm trying to point to in the thread - having an identity attached to a view leads to irrational behaviour in an attempt to maintain a coherent self image. You are not reading what is written but imagining something that fits your view. Here is the alarm bell  

Mark, that is exactly what you do, your identity is attached to your view, leading to irrational behavior in an attempt to maintain your self image.  You are re-framing what is written in regards to your personal interpretations, and using imagination to have it fit within your frame of view.  Truly fascinating!  Here is another alarm bell, ding ding!  

Mark, that is exactly what you do, your identity is attached to your view, leading to irrational behavior in an attempt to maintain your self image.  You are re-framing what is written in regards to your personal interpretations, and using imagination to have it fit within your frame of view.  Truly fascinating!  Here is another alarm bell, ding ding!  

Psi, you are hilarious!  I suspect the point is that everyone filters their perceptions according to various assumptions and beliefs.  Apparently there is just too much to deal with otherwise, every crack in every tree, every molecule of smell from each passing car, it's too much information.  Some probably filter more heavily than others and add more spin than others but everyone does it.  Understanding one's own personal system of filtering better can lead to some interesting insights and may hopefully help one to do it a best less over time though.   "In seeing only the seen' is the goal it seems.   And as usual, it's typically way easier to see other people's irrationality than one's own.   Yet Buddhism emphasizes we work on our own stuff, not others.   Maybe that is because a big part of the prob is we all tend to see others' flaws easily but not our own, then this finger pointing becomes a way we can avoid our own problems by pointing at others instead.  

From a practical perspective, it makes sense.  There are thousands of people around, could I hope to get them all to do what I want, what makes me feel better, or what I think they should do?  Seems unlikely overall, although I may be able to have a modest effect on some if I am very skillful (a big If that!)  Trying to herd a rabble of cats woud also be a huge source of stress for most. Alternatively, I can have much more success understanding and working on my own responses to the cat hoards such that I am not reactive to all their kitty cat stuff, even if some are hissing and showing claws.  Because myself is the thing I have most chance and ability to control, attempts at anything else are dubious at best and potentially stressful if you are much invested in it.  

Then again from the perspective of psychology in general, it would be nice if humans could more easily and efficiently see their blind spots and triggers more clearly, evolve more quickly, etc  Psychologists have been working on that for some decades and have made some progress in some areas at least.  And Buddhists have been working on it from their own angles.  But judging by the current state of humaity, there is certainly room for improvement.  ;-P  

Yes correct, there was a discusson brought up as to if people post in an imperative tone, what kind of qualifications do they have to justify such a tone?  Since some early posts on this thread had aspects of imperative tone in them along with the intended subject of this thread which had to do with the dynamics of how arguments get going.   There has been a bit of irony to how it's developed from there!
-Eva 

Okay, interesting, I have a filter view of self identity getting in the way of all this, and think this entire thread is all about me, being Psi the Grand Imperator and all.  Just kidding?!  

So, back to the view of identity, is there social identity at play in all this?

Different views at play.

This discussion board is a tennins match, ball is hit back and forth trying to make a point.

This discussion board is a campfire, we are sitting around , watching the fire , discussing the phenomenon of the views of the campfire.

This disussion board is kitty cats, a little playfulness, a little rough and tumble, and all fun and games until someone scratches an "I".

Psi

One valuable litmus test for truth I have come across lately is humor.  If something makes me laugh even though I was previously blind to it, then it frequently turns out to be a valuable truth for me.  These images made me laugh, which is why I thought of that.  But yeah, humor has been a good way for me to step outside of my own hardened opinions.

Excerpts from Mark's OP:


Katy: 



Eva:


Exactly. So I have taken up the invitation and the role and shared my own thesis: What is this knowledge attested here and how can I see it demonstrated, not re-narrated? And my own hypothesis: Easy to write out instructions, hard to walk the talk continuously

So to add a little more color: this forum is like a lab sometimes to me and I challenge my own views and the views/claims of others, by means that will evoke action (act & re-act). 

Now, Mark, if you do not have a spirituality around this thread and/or holding to views, perhaps you can (and have already) laughed. And perhaps, as you noted in your outset: "you have liberated a little bit of yourself".



( About the imperative! I have lived in cultures that love to use the imperative and can find it very sweet ("Eat, manga, Katy!". In poems, like those I've been sent by lovely friends via email, I prefer gerunds. That may be cultural, but I can and do live fine with the imperative.)


Psi:

Perfect (to me) =] 

_________
Edit: So, Mark, where I think/thought you might be going with your insight in the OP is similar to the Theravadan  Buddhist phrase, "Akuppa-ceto-vimutti" (linked example of one transl) which is sometimes translated, "Unprovoked is my release" to express freedom. Best wishes.

From my end, you were not part of the subject matter.  But like you, I don't tend to notice the imperative speech pattern that much either so not many get on my radar for that.  I've noticed over the years that if I say something vague, a number of people will tend to come out of the woodwork and worry I might have been talking about them and usually I had not considered it related to them at all.  Sometimes I don't even recognize the identity of the person!  (but yes, I do remember Psi ;-P )  You'd think this would teach me not to be vague or to change my style or something but apparently not! 
Well if you gotta filter, pick a useful one I say! (or should I say 'I suggest')
This is my work thought process but the ball is symbolic of a task, my goal is to efficiently smack balls/tasks into the other court until the set is completed or at least until my court is empty of balls. 
This is my view of a preferred kind of social conversation. 
This is my general view of general humanity and especially us USA dwellers (of which I have the most experience).  ;-P 

A fair question. The entire post was qualified with "Maybe it can be of use" and asking for others to "point to something" if they saw problems. So I don't think we are in a situation of me taking a position of an expert. The goal was to share and get feedback - that has worked well for me.

The best way I felt it could be demonstrated was to engage Katy in a discussion using the principles I outlined. So Katy was reacting to certain aspects of the post more emphatically than others, exploring that could be a way of allowing Katy to understand what I was pointing to. If that can happen then Katy has her own 1st person experience of how the approach can be useful (or not). 

It should be clear to everyone that not everything works for everyone. I assume that people here all have filters for this sort of thing, they will get involved if they see some use for them or others. DhO specifically tries to encourage peers to share and grow. I took on board (up thread) that I should be more careful about starting discussion by suggesting people in general try something and instead report my experience or how ideas relate to me or ask questions.


I think it was demonstrated by Katy and my interaction. We had discussion where there are concrete examples of illogical behaviour when views get questioned. Whether Katy wants to take that on board is completely optional but I think others like Eva have seen the demonstration and rearticulated the concept I was pointing to. 

That it is harder to put into practise at all times (continuously) an insight seems obvious. I am not aware of anyone I would define as healthy who does not notice that they could improve their behavior. Now taking this to an extreme - that unless someone has perfect behavior and can demosntrate things with scientific precision then they are not to be listened to - is ridiculous. It should be noted that science is also a relative endeavor and does not proclaim universal proves but instead theories. I'm glad people post on DhO and make suggestions even when they are imperfect, nobody is forcing anyone to act.

There is cetainly some irony and at multiple levels. I see it as some evidence of the point I was trying to make but of course that is a view. The point is not to "not have views" but to be able to see views for what they are. So if someone can explain what is incoherent about the idea I presented then I should be open to changing my view unless I'm attached to it. As Derek pointed out, diṭṭhāsava is a concept in Buddhism that maps well to what I was describing, so this helps give me confidence in my understanding (one of the main goals of posting).

That Katy "can't" understand the motivations for her behavior is not inline with my assumptions, I believe Katy can understand the motivations if Katy wants to. There are many other techniques than discussions on a forum as mechanism to make that change. Diṭṭhāsava is a keyword that can lead to more authoritive suggestions. If Katy does or does not investigate is of no importance to me, I think our discussion served it's purpose independently of that.


In regards to the concept presented I think it held up well. In regards to the way I presented it I think it is clear I changed my view on that - thanks to Katy pointing it out.

Katy, your reference to Akuppa-ceto-vimutti is interesting, thanks. For some time I've been exploring the idea of "don't know" as a better foundation than "unshakeable knowledge". In my impression the Buddha points to this in some cases but I'm also aware there are many counter-examples. In the Buddhist traditions I'm aware of there is a belief in unshakeable knowledge and many examples of individuals who claim to have attained it. Daniel sometimes refers to things like "ultimate truth" if I remember correctly. Don't know as a foundation still allows for relative truths (and hierarchy) but I see it as a way of not getting attached to a particular view. To demonstrate (for Katy I see non-buddhism and buddhism as comlimentary, on other threads you can see how threatened some people are by non-buddhism (poor & irrational arguments/reactions), that in my opinion is an attachment to views. To qualify all this - it is my best guess at the moment.

If  you believe in intersubjective (and so far I do see that interbeing and co-arising exist), then action and thought count, as you would know that you create what you want to receive from the co-arising situation.

You react here to assert subjectively some possible or uncertain disability in your co-subjective attributing to your co-subjective an uncertain or speculative <"can't"> to understand your views/you. In the co-arising situation, this asserts disability for yourself and your situation and relationships by seedling them with "can't"s. ("They/one 'can't' understand me. But that group 'can' ".)

In intersubjective life (co-arising, interbeing), because of how you use your piece of the intersubjective, you can create and receive that "can't" for your situations/relationships. 


What is a remedy for your creating your current and future inheritance of a mysteriously disabling "can't"?

One, truly understanding the intersubjective (co-arising, interbeing).
Two, deflating the conceit and ill-will of your own suggested disability with what you wrote:

"Don't know" is not, to me, a quaint anti-intellectual folksy ignorance from a Korean zen monk or other.

"Don't know" is a reliable understanding of non-conceit and non-ill-will (using your piece of the intersubjective to co-arise situations you'd be glad-minded to be in versus creating disability for yourself and your situation) in exactly situations where two or more subjective views are not aligned but no one is so goofy as to to be self-righteous.


So clarity of one's impact in a co-arising situation. Want to recieve non-conceit? Create and share it. Want to be heard and enabled? Create it..


(and here, we are merely engaging on an Internet board. The challenge of living in society, together in the same space, eating, sharing a bathroom-- luxuries in parts of the world-- raises the bar of "Don't know"'s non-conceit, to say nothing of whether you/I could walk the "Don't know" in more challenging conditions.)

______
Edited and shortened for clarity, for easier you "can".. 

That is not how I understand intersubjective and it probably deserves another thread.


I think you are over-analysing things. You wrote "I can't offer you a deeper answer" upthread that was what I'm referring to. I'm not attributing this to you I'm accepting what you wrote. 


You are doing what you do not like in others - the imperative tone and prescriptive analysis. This might be pointing to the deeper answer, why behave in a way you don't like others behaving. We are in a thread started by your distress at an imperative tone so. That tone does not bother me (it certainly used to) but I do think this is a golden opportunity for you.



We have different definitions and again probably a whole other thread. I consider "don't know" more in regards to whether there is an absolute or not. So for example I don't buy into an "ultimate truth".

In regards to this thread I think it has pretty much run it's course. If you did not understand what I was pointing to that is fine, it is because I'm not great at pointing, that is fine too. 

Mark:
I agree with much of what you're written, where you're heading
(Edit: I refer to your expressed interest in intersubjectivity (aka interbeing, co-arising)). 


However, when you take up intersubjectivity (co-arising, interbeing) and define those co-beings who arising situationally with you in ways that suit you versus letting them speak for themselves (and allowing your own mind the relaxation of "Don't know") this is own-mind mirror.  

Simply, if your words land on no one and/or not their target, they still rest with the mind that created them and holds them: your "distress", your "do not like others", untill released, cessation.



So in ceasing your thread, perhaps you cease holding your mind to your deliberate creation of "distress" and other-dislike in response to your OP.  

It's the kind of thing that's useful to work out in a tiny, maybe contemplative, community like the DhO before imposing "distress" and other-dislike on forums of the daily life world, business, neighbors, family...

I'm glad it is useful to you. Thanks for your interest in the post. I find it is rare that people don't take offense when someone pulls into question a view they hold dearly. Given the nature of many discussions we all did pretty well here! Best wishes.

Threatened?  What is threatened? I do not understand why you keep saying people are threatened?  That is just your view.  Where do you paint a picture of a Buddhist Identity.  Is it because one uses Suttas?  For example, if I find Henry David Thoreau's writing to be useful, or Abraham Maslow's writings useful, am I labelled as a Thoreauian, or a Maslovian?  Is not that Identity making?  Maybe people in other threads, are pointing out exactly the behavior you are pointing to in OP.  Non-buddhism is chockful of poor and irrational arguments and reactions, that is what is being pointed to, that seems rational.  Rational in pointing out the irrational claims and verbal behaviors made by Non-buddhists, but, perhaps also in an irrational way?  And in your opinion that is attachment to views, which is another view.

My posts in other threads were to mainly point out the irrationality of non-buddhism and the unfair criticism of other people, whether one labels them as buddhist people or not. The non-buddhists blogs could have made fun of George Carlin, and I most assuredly would have stepped up to the plate and defended George Carlin.  George Carlin may not have been the most wholesome of speakers, but alot of his humour is steeped in truth. So, in defending other people is not to be confused so much with being threatened or defending views, and, one admittedly does have to stoop down into irrationality and views to point this phenomenon out.  Are there so called irrational Buddhists, sure, are there so called irrational non-buddhists, sure.

And that is what I was pointing to with an open hand towards, thus three fingers are not pointing back.  An open hand contains us all.

But,  why even use these labels, why not just use the word human?  Labelling just supports the whole problem of having identity view.

Humans are irrational, one actually has to be rational in order to see the irrationality.  By not admitting our irrationality, we can never deal with the irrationality directly.

Also, I might add,  the more a person is enmired and clinging to the identity view is directly proportionate to the projection of identifying others as having identity view.  Just a postulate, not trying to sound imperative.

In other words, we tend to think others are in the same mind states that we ourselves are in, but this is most often not the case.  This is a view, supported by subjective experience, not a statement of fact.

So, to save any trouble, yes I admit to being irrational, I am human, I do defend people, I do attack criticsms, I do not mean to attack people personally, though there may be some collateral damages, I am learning, and I am sorry, and also not sorry.

Psi


So to end with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt

Edit to clarify, This last quote is not in reference to you Mark, it is referring back to the Non-Buddhists articles and such.

I personally don't have a problem with people suggesting reasonable experiments (not likely to be dangerous, etc).  If others don't want to take the suggestion, no one is forcing them.  You don't have a position of authority or hierarchy here so a suggestion is just a suggestion. 
Yes, I very much see your ideas and unplanned demonstration as interesting and have noticed much along similar lines.  Alas the general problem is much clearer to me than any easy solution.  For myself looking back, there were some truths that it took me years and years to finally allow myself to see and some blind spots in self that took that long or longer.  There are likely still some there that are waiting for me to dig down to as well.  When I was not ready to see, then just pointing it out logically to me did not work.  My defense mechanisms could always defeat any attempts.  (I suspect you have seen similar in your attempts here which I thought were impressively skillful but yet seemed mostly thwarted.)  Until a point where I was ready and the dam broke and I could finally see. 

I am guessing that blind spots are the end manifestation but they are made of many little insecurities and self identity imbalances that each need to be fairly well repaired and shored up before progress can be seen at the downstream end where the manifestation is more obvious.  If there is a faster way, I'd love to know about it, but as I mentioned before, that is something psychology is hard at work on so hopefully they will make progress on it.  From my end, since others can't be so easily influenced and hopes for control are likely to lead to frustration, perhaps learning to appreciate the kitty cat show in all it's strangeness and complexity is in part how I can handle it more effectively.  I don't see any obvious solution to the drama and maybe the drama plays a part in something important and that is why it is there.  Maybe it is a stage we go through, there for certain reasons until its lessons learned and its job is done. 
Yes, it was a very interesting bit of info there and maps well with what seems to work for me.  Another fortune cookie saying, "The more I know, the more I realize I don't know' has seemed to describe my development in recent years.  It seems that humans find answers comforting but over recent time I've learned to be even more comfortable with not knowing than to grab onto an answer too tightly without a lot of evidence to back it. Perhaps part of it is that over time I realized I had been so wrong about a great many things and also that I seem to learn more easily when I am less rigid about my perspectives.  
-Eva

Please read the OP - I think people feel threatened when their view is challenged and their identity is attached to their view.


I don't think I did make a reference to Buddhist identity, which means your question points to your attachment to a Buddhist identity. Probably another good example of irrational behavior - reading things that are not there. 


Your attitude toward non-buddhism says infinitely more about you than non-buddhism. There are three hands pointing back at you.

To clarify what is probably going to be assumed: I do not identify with non-buddhism. Which is one reason I did not get involved in your thread.

That is pretty much my opinion too. But there are people here who are sensitive to this, so it does not hurt to adapt style if possible. It does not bother me if others keep doing it.


I agree that a rational discussion is extremely unlikely to change the opinion of someone who identifies with their view. I think a rational discussion can identify that situation and then we can choose to disengage or act differently. In the past I've let that sort of behaviour annoy me - I guess I'm overly attached to rationality. When I am not making sense to someone I will try to think of this as an alarm bell - maybe I'm not miscommunicating but communicating my ignorance. Likewise when I get emotional about what someone says/does then it can be an alarm bell that the issue is with me not them.


I found the concept of shadow work very useful. I think there is a point in some forms of meditation where we realize that there are no bad distractions. This is very empowering for meditation. I saw something similar in shadow work, the very worst aspects of my personality are opportunities rather than threats. Obviously not an easy place to get to but can make for some quick progress I think.



Ahhh, that feels good - you are preaching to the choir

I get the most irritated when they do something that is a trait in me that I don't like, kind of a projection thing if using the psychology lingo.  I also tend to want to control things, and you can't control kitty cats so that is an easy source of frustration if I let it be. If they are not pinging anything in me or I am not letting them ping anything in me, then I can just shrug my shoulders and move on.  Any response much different than the latter is a warning bell to me that more of my stuff has been brought out.  
I think more that it took me such a very long time to get to here, but much of that time was me being caught in the drama and moving forward only very very slowly like through quicksand, too caught for considering things like meditation and shadow work.  For whatever reason, maybe because of my memories of my past, that I guess my interest currently is more on how to help people in the earlier steps when there is so much suffering.  Once they get later down the path, seems to me they can largely help themselves at that point.  And there are ones like Daniel and others who have more interest in teaching those later parts of the path.   There seems a lack of mechanisms for those who are the most caught in the drama, maybe that is because people do not see a clear way to help those people.  I actually don't currently see a clear way either but it's something i have an interest in.  (edited to add the bold type to the second batch of writing for consistency)
-Eva

Right , so why do you keep saying people feel threatened when their view is challenged, what view is challenged?  What if a view is considered unwholesome, is it not right to challenge that view, to examine it?  One can still examine a view, yet not feel threatened or challenged.  You seem to imply that we can not examine a view without being labeled as being irrational, threatened, making poor conclusions,  or challenged.   It is your view that people are threatened , challenged , and irrational.  Do you view it that way because that is how you feel and react yourself, so you think others must also feel threatened and challenged?  

You seem to be saying that it is not in anyones capacity to examine a view without being irrational.  I think you just do not like it when people do not agree with your views, so you label their commentaries as poor and irrational, which is, by the way poor and irrational.Well, you said, " I see non-buddhism and buddhism as comlimentary, on other threads you can see how threatened some people are by non-buddhism, poor & irrational arguments/reactions that in my opinion is an attachment to views." and by that statement that would imply Buddhists and Non-Buddhists, which implies a buddhist identity and a non buddhist identity.  Which is why I ask why you are viewing and identifying people as Buddhists and non-buddhists, etc, etc, blah blah, 

So, if you were not identifying anyone here as a buddhist, then I guess I was wrong, sorry .Is it really my  attitude about non-buddhism, or my attitude about non-buddhism bloggers back biting and gossiping , and coming to false conclusions about what people said?  That does not threaten me or make me or anyone else a poor and irrational observer, as you presume to judge as so.


Hey meow, I have to go to the litter box, right meow

All people do not feel threatened when their views are challenged, I did not say that. Again you are making irrational conclusions. I am saying that people behave in irrational ways when their views are challenged AND their identity is attached to that view.

So in your case, in that other thread you wrote about yourself "I was probably wrong in posting, just trying to have a last laugh of sarcasm and satire myself before Nibbana sets in for good, there is a touch of evil in my brain, I admit it, I admit to having fun poking fun at the Buddha pokers." While on this thread you wrote "I do not mean to attack people personally" which is in contradiction of what you wrote in the other thread "I admit to having fun poking fun at the Buddha pokers". 

So for example, you identify yourself as buddhist and when you see that view is attacked by non-buddhists you reacted with a pitiful thread highlighting your own ignorance of non-buddhism combined with personal attacks. In my theory you did that because you were personally threatened by the idea that there could be fundamental problems in buddhist views. 

I am in no way saying that views should not be critcized. I am saying that I try not to get attached to views. By not being attached to a view it allows a rational discussion about different views and opens the door to changing my view.

If you were not threatened by non-buddhism and non-buddhism is a bad idea you would have made rational arguments not launched into personal attacks.


I suspect you believe that if you apologize then whatever behavior you are apologizing for can be ignored. I don't think your apologies are genuine because you write things like : "I am sorry, and also not sorry". If you want to apologize to me then change your behavior in how you communicate with me so you do will not need to apologize again in the future.


You tried to use "bloggers back biting and gossiping" as a way of invalidating the insights of non-buddhism. When you wrote thinks like "he has yet to say anything that has brought any more insight than a fortune cookie himself" this is a criticism of non-buddhist theory based on a personal attack.

You don't have a valid opinon about non-buddhism because as you wrote in that thread "What are they critizing about Buddhism exactly? " which would be a question you should answer for yourself before starting to criticise.

In that thread Chris pointed to these concerns and you replied with "I was probably wrong in posting" But now you are trying to defend the OP by completely irrational reinterpretation of what you wrote and why you wrote it. Again my theory is that you are doing this not because you are stupid but because you are attached to a view and feeling threatened. It is a way for me to have compassion toward you rather than taking your attitude personally.

You can read the points Eva raises about the futility of rational discussion with someone who is attached to a view being discussed. If I stop replying to you then you can assume that is the reason.

That certainly happens. I think the worst often arises when we are projecting based on traits that are only sub-conscious. In this case people still project but without any hope of a conscious awareness they are doing that (because that trait appears not to be in them). This is part of the shadow work concept - consciously going looking for those traits so they can come into consciousness and starting to see the projections.


It is a question I've also thought about without any conclusion. For example meditation can seem so useful to me but virtually nobody around me is using it.

At the moment I think trying to understand this from the perspective of individuals is not the right approach. If we see the individual as largely constructed by the society they grew up in then we can start to see more of the probelm I think. So for example the education systme can be seen as creating conformists. Even individualism can be seen as a social outcome not an individual choice.

Personally I got a lot of insight into this when living in different cultures for extended periods. This in my mind is worth a huge amount of time on the cushion! When you learn a new language as an adult within a new culture it is a very powerful experience. Basically you are forced to see that a huge part of what was identified as "me" was in fact social conditioning. Each new culture strips away more and of course there is a huge amount of commonality between all cultures, it is mind boggling to think just how conditioned we are.

So I'm tending to see the social systems as what could allow people to make steps toward liberation. There have been massive changes in individual behavior and experience through social changes e.g. de-segregation, education of women etc. This is perhaps one of the issues with most buddhist practise I've seen in the west - it has adopted individualism rather than challenged it.

Well, then you whiffed the point.

Yes, I admit to having flaws.  Recognition, no blame, change. We all have flaws, thanks for pointing your finger at that.

No, I did not really see any views being attacked, just people, guess I missed that one.  You are just saying I am identifying as a Buddhist, and it is your view that I am personally threatened.  I am not personally threatened, you are just speaking imperatively, based upon your opinion and identifying me with Buddhism, which you denied doing earlier.  And you are now accusing me of being ignorant of non-buddhism and using personal attacks.  Which ironically, is what I was pointing out in the Non-Buddhist Blogs, the ignorance of Buddhism , and the personal attacks by the non-Buddhist bloggers.  That is the danger of rolling in the gutters with them, as Kenneth Folk so aptly pointed out.Well, I am not threatened, and I thought I was making rational points on irrational statement, but by rolling in the irrational mire, I must have gotten the smudge of irrationality.  Or you are just making imperative judgements again.Again, that is your opinion, I hold no views on this, I am genuinely both sorry and not sorry.Right, that is the point being made, he was making a criticism of a Buddhist Monk by using personal attacks, and I made the same point in the same fashion.  What is good for the goose is good for the other goose.  That is why it is called sarcasm.  It is only you viewing and identifying this as irrational behavior, and by doing so, are also idenfying the irrational behavior of the non-Buddhist bloggers, which was my point in the post.I have no valid opinion because there are very little points being made, just alot of abstract philosophies and such.  That is my answer and my criticism.You are confusing compassion with pity, and I have no need of anyones pity.

You would do well to read those points yourself, as well.

The ball is in your court Mark, I have made my case, you can reformat it to fit your views and self identification proces if you want, you can have the last word.  This is like Shadow boxing, can you see that?

Psi

Mark --

I'd love to hear more about your hypothesis as presented here. It appears to assume that individual awakening and the practices that engender it are not compatible with an awakening to the intersubjective nature of existence.  I'm glad you identify your assumptions about wholesome and unwholesome but I'm not sure I quite understand yet. Can you elaborate? Is it about the assumptions we make about how existence arises that make the difference? Do those of us who've pursued individual awakeing for many years miss the imtersubjective, igonore it altogether, or? Is the intersubjective a view that we can adopt, or is it an entirely different paradigm that requires a new set of practices entirely? What would those pratices be?


I'm getting an inkling and really want to get it but it's possible your suspicions are correct and I'm more or less blind to it. I think if I can grasp it intellectually that will lead to a deeper knowing. I'd like you to keep trying, assuming you're game. Thus my questions, above.

Thanks!

Just an FYI - my friend Kenneth Folk and Terry Patten will explore the topic of intersubjective awakening on September 5th:

http://www.beyondawakeningseries.com/2013/09/k-folk-9-13/


New link here:  http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventID=45554952

Hi Chris,

I wish it was perfectly clear for me I'm happy to explore the concept but whatever comes up will be co-constructed. I enjoyed out discussion on Tom Pepper's full strength anatman which is pointing in a similar direction I think. All of what follows is a theory - I hope nobody jumps on my imperative tone

I'll try to define inter-subjective. It is really hard to find phrases that are not already loaded. At first glance I would guess Kenneth and I are talking about different things. I'm glad you pointed out Kenneth's work and I hope to hear it.

I used the term inter-subjective but I think this will be misunderstood. Typically that means two or more individuals interacting e.g. a relationship. This is not what I'm pointing at.

I have in mind the concept of a "socially constructed self" but perhaps not in the way most would assume. Hopefully I'm just rephrasing Pepper here. I would expect someone with a buddhist view to agree with the phrase "socially constructed self" because they would map this to the idea of karma (causality) and how interactions with our environment shape the individual (and vice-versa). That is not what I'm trying to point to which is why I avoided that term.

The "inter-subjective self" does not exist within an individual. Although it depends on that individual to exist. It is also dependent on the society and environment. Without the society and the environment it could not exist. Obviously it is impermanent and changing.

A concept that is related to this is "inverted consciousness" again a painful term to define. But my guess is that if I told you "society expects X from individuals" or  "culture is evolving" this raises no surprise on your part. But those statements actually give society and culture a largely independent existence with some sort of "conciousness" e.g. expectations and evolution, like a conscious entity. Basically we are projecting consciousness onto things that are completely inter-subjective. This has larger impacts than we might like to admit. We become the subjects of that entity. For example we have a strong feeling of powerlessness and futility in opposing that huge system. To push the analogy a little too far we are using those conepts in the same way others might use God. So the market, economy, society etc are what determines our lives etc.

I'm trying to point to an inter-subjective self that exists beyond my physical brain but is dependent on it. So for example this inter-subjective self includes you because I would not be the person I am without this discussion. It also includes the culture that taught me english and the school system that educated me to write etc. Those things are not perceptions. As we discussed in the past I consider dependent origination in relation to subjective experience. What I am pointing to is beyond subjective experience. For example what you are thinking while reading this is part of my inter-subjective self but those are your subjective experiences. In the view of dependent origination your thoughts would need to result in some action that would impact my subjective experience to be considering arising for me.

If I focus solely on subjective experience then I effectively, to some degreee, cut myself off from that larger inter-subjective self. It therefore becomes difficult to reason about things like morality because morality is an emergent property of human interaction. There is no morality without individuals interacting. In typical greek philosophy or western buddhism the virtues are the domain of the individual and her choice. That is because the world is interpreted through a subjective perspective.

I'll take a break here and reply to your questions/comments.

"It appears to assume that individual awakening and the practices that engender it are not compatible with an awakening to the intersubjective nature of existence." I think there is an awakening to a type of intersubjective experience, it is described in terms of an unfolding, a sort of destiny and that makes sense from a subjective view. That is "inverted consciousness" taken to an extreme. However I don't think it is incompatible, I just suspect it is not through that path that inter-subjective practises will be found. Typically those types of people are already convinced of their ultimate truth. It is rare to have them go and become a beginner in an unrelated spiritual practise to test their ultimate truth,. The rare ones I've listened to that did also stopped using words like "ultimate". I certainly would not rule it out.

"assumptions about wholesome and unwholesome" their is a sort of perenial wisdom in the major religions. To provide a rationale for why those particular virtues, there is often some sort of metaphysical justice. In buddhism it is getting off the wheel, in christianity heaven etc. Without the religion it seems we end end up with philosophy that fails to ground the virtues in logic (from what I've read). If we take the anatman thing seriously then there is no ultimate, only relative, so grounding things does not make sense. However there clearly is some sense in the virtues but I think we have more chance of rationalizing them in terms of the inter-subjective self.

Brief qualifier - I am not claiming some attainment in regards to the inter-subjective self. So I am taking wild guesses to answer your questions that follow.

"Do those of us who've pursued individual awakening for many years miss the imtersubjective, igonore it altogether, or?" I suspect you were following traditions with practises focused on subjective experience. Certainly you will be aware of many influences contributing to your experience such as culture and upbringing. But, for example, you may not have developed a strong belief in your power to change the social systems which you participate in (I should qualify that this would obviously not be an individual endeavour).

"Is the intersubjective a view that we can adopt, or is it an entirely different paradigm that requires a new set of practices entirely?" I certainly think you can adopt other views. It is also probably a different paradigm. It probably does involve other practises but I would hope there is complimentarity with the practises you know. I suspect someone like Martin Luther King with a strong meditation practise may have been even more successful. 

"What would those pratices be?" hmm, the 64 million dollar question The people I've seen pushing this most actively were involved in non-buddhism. I'm particularly impressed by Patrick Jennings and Glen Wallis. There is a steep learning curve to understanding what they are pointing at and I don't claim to have grasped it all.

I think practises could involve multiple people from different cultures. Relating back to this OP it might involve understanding the self as views rather than experiences. In meditation we deconstruct the nature of experience, maybe there is something similar for deconstructing our views. However unlike meditation where we see the emptiness of experience we may see the reality that views create. A person able to carry radical views without subjective suffering would be a danger to society as we know it  

Link broken ?

Hi Mark, 

In regards to what you are considering and describing downrthread, etc, some ideas have come to mind and some books I have read that may have some similar ideas that you may or may not use.  Or, I may be off base with your examination.  I also have some first hand type of experiences that support a social , or multiple mind identity, or any other term that may be similar is a mind meld type of phenomenon.

First I want to add in how I understand personality view and social view , as it relates to mind.

Thoughts, when thoughts arise, I understand these to arise in the mind, one could just say a mind.  Now that a thought has arisen it may cross over and be adapted to another mind.  Now, each mind normally assumes that the thought is theirs, that they thought it all by themselves, usually.  And the mind takes ownership of the thoughts.  And, the next step, as you have pointed to, if someone tries to take that thought away, dismantle, or show if it is untrue, then the mind grasps and clings to the thought.   And the mind will fight over the thought.

I think the above paragraph covers much of the same ground you were explaining earlier.  Just replace the word thought with view, and the word mind with self.

So, these thoughts, or views, or mental formations, arise in the mind, or self.  Then the mental formations grow and coalesce into a social thought formation.  The social formation is then supported and fed by many minds and the many minds support and feed each other perpetuating the phenomenon.  Though, as far as I can tell, the social view formations are still only held within the individual minds.  The metaphor would be the mind as a drop in the social mind ocean, that forms waves and rolls over us all.

So anyway, these mass mental formations form and can cause all kinds of harm and good.  Though I will generally say harm necause most thoughts form from attraction and aversion.  Thus on a mass scale we have potential for great conflict within humanity.  We have one religion versus another religion.  one nationalism versus another nationalism.  One group of sport team fan versus the other sport team fan. Pool players versus dart players.  Socialism versus Capitalism.  Etc. etc.  

So, from what I understand there are views, personality views and social identity views.  And from what I understand they both arise from a mistaken belief in the ego and self as a thing.  But, that is my understanding, and do not wish to sidetrack off into debate land.

From what I understand though, is that none of this is really needed.  One can , eventually, through mental cultivation drop the whole mess.  Then one can abide in a mind free from external mental view influences, this is usually a gradual process.  

In other words, to be of society, yet not with society.  But, here are some books that I have read that seem to point to some understanding of this phenomenon within humanity, with the wiki excerpt.  Just FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds


May we all be free of mass delusion

Psi

I posted a better link to the Folk-Patten dialog:  http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventID=45554952

Sorry about the first link. It worked and then... it didn't.

CHAPTER I
ORGANIZING CHAOS 

      THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 
      We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. 

Mark --



These comments raise more questions. Before I address the subsequent material in your comment let me ask:

What is outside the individual but yet dependent on it? I'm struggling with this description and the examples you use can all be explained (for me, anyway) in terms of phenomena affecting an individual mind. This conversation between you and me, learned moral precepts that influence my decisions, and so on. I agree that schools and churches and cultures are not perceptions, or are they? How else can I experience them other than as perceptions? Or are you referring to the construction of these concepts as influenced by influences external to mind - but if so how does the process work? Are these like memes? Shared meaning?

As you can tell, I'm still struggling with the concept of intersubjective experience being beyond, or different from, subjective experience. I think this is because I don't (yet?) see a way around the process of perception and cognition as I've always conceived of it. I don't (yet?) recongnize the influences beyond or excluding, the subjective.


Mark, I actually do have a belief in my power to change systems in which I particpate. or example, I have a job that requires collective action. 




This makes me think that action may be the difference, not perception. If, like Tom Pepper says, action is a requirement of knowledge then maybe martin Luther King, or Ghandi, or Mother Theresa, or Tom Hayden, or anyone who devotes time, energy and action toward social change is using the intersubjective?



I think the "self" is both views and experiences. In meditation I can deconstruct both, and do so regularly. It seems obvious to me that view determines experience, and vice versa.

Am I missing something? For example, how do you define the word "view" in the sense that you're using it?


Yes, and that person sounds like what I would call a sociopath  

Yeah I think we should focus on seeing if we can reach agreement on what was described before adding more concepts to the mix.



I agree that you can only experience things as perceptions. You are always experiencing perceptions not the things themselves. So for example you experience sound but that sound only exists in your subjective experience. However that sound is dependent on the ear and dependent on pressure waves in the surrounding air. Another example might be radiation, you do not perceive radio waves but you can trust they exist because you can listen to the radio. I am taking it as a truth that there are things outside of subjective experience, in the thread about Pepper's article you agreed with this.

Are there things outside of the individual's subjective experience that depend on the individual. How are you defining individual ? I guess you mean subjective experience. So, are there things outside of subjective experience that depend on subjective experience ? Many actions you take are dependent on subjective experience, you can't have this conversation without perceiving what I am writing. Following the law of causality there are actions you take that will continue to influence the world when your subjective consciousness ceases. So many things are "outside the individual but yet dependent on it".

Your question "how does the process work?" is a valid question but it expands the scope of the discussion and I think we should look for common ground. However it points to a common tactic when confronting views. If a view challenges someone's identity it is likely they will demand that view is proven to a much higher standard than their existing view. So for example someone may make a statement and the other may ask "is that factual, did you make a survey?" when of course they did not make a survey to get to their current view either. This is not intentional I think it is one of the sophist techniques that we all pick up. Does gravity exist ? Surprisingly there is still not an agreed scientific understanding of how gravity works, it is a mystery. The fact that we can't explain how gravity works does not mean we deny gravity or that we can't use gravity and predict gravity etc.

So up to here do you agree that there are things outside of your preception and these things can be dependent on your perception ? This is not requiring you to be able to explain how that works.


Fair point, either my example is not relevant or you've demonstrated I'm wrong. I did qualify the example and I do think you are somewhat exceptional in that you are more open to these views than others with advanced practises. Even very experienced practitioners trying to interact with non-buddhism ended up getting into ugly discussions. We can blame that all on the non-buddhists but we can also guess that if the practitioners in question had understood the non-buddhists they would not have ended up exchanging personal insults. You did not have that sort of reaction, consider the non-buddhism thread you were involved in - several reactions there are unfortunately typical and ugly.

However I would say there is an obvious example of what I'm pointing to in regards to your practise: a difficulty in undestanding the points I'm trying to clarify at the begining of this reply. I don't think these are complicated and I expect there will be a "click" and it will become obvious. The problem seems more related to the view you are holding and mapping everything I say onto that view rather than adopting another view (even if temporary). You've got a massive investment in that view so it is very understandable. This is not to say that I am right - we are exploring a view and we may or may not choose to take it on.


I think you saw my discussion with Pepper about knowledge as action, I'm not convinced by his argument. But I think he is headed in a similar direction - he is motivated to find a rational reason for social action. But I think he is taking a leap with knowledge as action..

I think that people like King are much more connected to an inter-subjective self than the typical meditator. In them I think we can see someone who is valuing that inter-subjective self above the conventional self. In western terms we would probably talk about altruism and brain chemicals which is so obviously a reductive and limited understanding that I'm not going to go there.

I think there is a wide range of predispositions, so for example some people "wake up" without any meditation. For example it can happen as a result of a depression or life threatening experience. Some people probably wake up to the inter-subjective self too and to varying degrees. Clearly you feel there is "something" that your current practise is not addressing, now it may not be the inter-subjective self as I am describing it.


I think you are using view for a subjective perspective i.e. it can be deconstructed into perceptions. I am trying to point to the inter-subjective nature of views i.e. that they are social constructions and exist in a larger context.

An extreme example might be racism. You may have realised your inate racism and may have progressed in deconstructing that view in meditation. Let's assume for a second that you are absolutely not racist, this has not changed the fact that racism exists. You continue to be part of that reality. Every time you act in a way that is not racist you impact racism beyond your subjective experience. If you only consider the subjective then those impacts etc are not important, if you considered only the inter-subjective then those impacts would be all that is important. I'm not suggesting we should be all one or all the other.


Yes I guess they could be, but I would also consider Marting Luther King to have been a danger to society - society was radically changed so we could say he helped destroy the society as it existed in his time.

That is progress but the page states "Replay is Available!" and the replay does not work. I guess this is because the thing has not been recorded yet and we will find it there in the future. Perhaps you can ping the message board just before it happens I suspect others will be interested.

Yeah, I am also pretty confused on the meaning used here of 'intersubjective.'  I am wondering if it is at all similar to a concept like influence of the morphogenic field or somesuch.  Plus yes there is this mention of subjective personal beliefs that we probably got a lot from society as children and carried with us.  For many, there is a belief in the power that society (apparently) has over us.   There are many beliefs that most individuals think are 'obviously true' or 'common sense' that are different now than the  'obvious' truths of the past or other society's .  Yes we tend to be so sure that ours are right and theirs were wrong.

Now for having strong influence or building something large in society, from some things I've learned and what I've come to understand, you need a few basic things, one is kind of drive to improve, put on step in front of the other and keep going.  Most do not do that, most give up or just stop when they are satisfied.  But a few will keep pushing the goal post forward endlessly, those ones will likley go further.  But you don't need to see the whole way or thing, just have a general plan, and go for the next few steps you can see in front of you.  There was some famous guy who said, "Go as far as you can see and when you get there, you will see farther"  Other than that, I think you need to be free of any specific strong hindrances  like too much insecurity, lack of confidence in self, etc.  But most people I know reach a certain point and then think that is as far as they can go and/or are satisfied with status and/or just do not take consistant action towards a goal and they just do  not operate towards larger goals beyond a certain point.  There is also the danger of expecting happiness via certain achievements.  Some reach great achievements but are not happy and so kind of get unbalanced and out of control at that point.  To go far, you need to have a balanced psyche.  

As for achieving goals, Psi brought up some books that basically say that a lot of things are the same baloney and cycles over and over again, similar political plather gets regurgitated in cycles and works according to whatever cycle the masses are currently in, for instance.  Or that every 10 or 15 yeras, there is another 'end' times or world is going into a great new paranormal time motif, y2k, end of Mayan calendar, etc.   People tend to think it's a new big deal thing when often it's more like a new wrapping on an old game.  But IMO, that does not mean that nothing can ever change at a deeper level.  I like to just go for something I find believable like maybe a few percent change towards improvement, that is something my mind can accept fairly easily as within a reasonable realm of possibility and worth trying for.  And if it goes beyond that then fine.    
LMAO! I was thinking such a person might be enlightened!  Say I can think radically different than anyone else, but that does not mean I don't care if they suffer, it doesn't mean I lack empathy.  It just means I don't feel any pressure to agree with them just because it's the current social norm.  It also does not mean that I hold radical views to society in every possible subject area, only that I don't feel pressure to agree.  I may agree in some areas just because that feels right to me though.  And I woudl conversely not feel pressure to disagree, so there will probably be some areas where I would agree.  I just would not be doing it because society says I should, I would be doing it for my own personal subject reasons.  To be a sociopath would IMO require certain specific types of disagreement with society that would IMO involve not just lack of pressure to agree with them but also lack of caring about their welfare in general.   For instance, I feel no pressure to think like my pets and agree with what they think is important or true.  But yet I still care about their welfare, make certain compromises according to their thought processes, etc and do not like to see them suffer, etc.  And I may even at times realize some of their wisdom is likely true, I just don't feel any pressure either way. 

Hi Mark,
You wrote:
In your last sentence: 'So many things are "outside the individual but yet dependent on it"'. 

To follow up on your example, "Following the law of causality there are actions you take that will continue to influence the world when your subjective consciousness ceases". 

As an example: take two people from Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896. You have one judge from a "mixed-race" family, dissenting, John Marshall Harlan. All other judges forming the legal opinion to support "separate but equal". Long after all judges and Homer Plessy die, their actions continue to affect other subjects (beings subject to their actions and the Supreme Court rule of law for U.S. persons).

So while the actors lived were they "inside" the "thing" of their action or "outside"? (I'm using "thing" to be consistent with your "So many things.." sentence).

And when they died did the actors become "outside" the "thing" of their action? 

Are the actors' U.S. descendents "inside" or "outside" the original actors' actions?

What makes the actors' descendents "inside" or "outside" of the original actors:
Genes? Social and environmental conditions? Both? And more?



The first question you pose,
To your example of radio waves: 

Do you know the history of what we call "radio waves"?
How could what we detect and call "radio waves" have entered our perception scape without first subjective perception?
Do we go back to Greeks combing cats and getting static shock?
Or stone age people fascinated by rocks "sticking" to one another?
And then some time later we have a Mr. Hertz working on what is subjectively perceived ("inside to the individual"), electromagnetism and "radio waves"? 

So which of the components of "radio waves" did not come into our subjective perception without subjective perception?



So I raised these two points via your two examples to learn what is "inter" (inside) and "extra" (outside) in your intersubjective concept you're bringing to the forum.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "thing of their action". They had an experience of taking those actions and probably had an altered experience later as a result of those actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by inside, we were not using that term but if you mean subjective experience then yes there was a subjective experience associated with those actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by outside, but if you mean independent of their inter-subjective then yes I think those actions also impacted things outside of their experience e.g. some people had different experiences because of those actions but those experiences did not result in actions that impacted the subjective experience the original actors.


Not sure what you mean here. I don't think it makes sense to speak about the actors being somewhere after death.


Minor point but it is Chris's question and I'm proposing an answer (and not claiming to have the definitive answer).


Yes



I'm not sure I'm going to make a lot of sense for you but I'll try.

Electromagnetic radiation is a continuous spectrum, I'm not sure if you are familiar with that concept. Basically your eyes are sensitive to part of that spectrum. We do not have organs that can detect (at low levels of intensity) the vast majority of the electromagnetic spectrum (including radio waves)


This can certainly be confusing but static electricity and electromagnetism are not electromagnetic radiation.

What people like Hertz did was discover ways we could measure radio waves. So we do not actually perceive radio waves. For example you might look at an instrument and measure the frequency of a radio waves by looking at the display. We can only infer that radio waves exist because of our limited senses.

It should be clear by analogy that we do not directly perceive any "thing" such as air pressure (sound), light (vision) etc. Our senses convert these things into electrical signals that are then again converted into qualia or what we perceive. We can only infer that there is light and shadow or sound based on these perceptions. Because we can communicate these perceptions we can start to identify which ones are a valid inference and which ones aren't. So for example if you close one eye you should see a black circle in the middle (where the nerve endings exit) but you don't because the brain is providing false qualia (through prediction/inference).


Hopefully that clarifies what I mean by things that are outside of an individual's subjective experience. We were focusing on subjective experience and maybe if Chris and I can agree on that we'l lmove on to inter-subjective which is going to be even more guess work.

Hm.. we did not seem to get anywhere with me providing human examples (Harlan, Plessy, Herz) to your ideas (consequences extending beyond the life of a person who takes action contributive to extensive consequences and radio waves).



So this point you made earlier with Eva (8.23) I think is something that does come up repeatedly in this forum; people identify their views, assert their views, mingle and change views.


 

And this point you made with Chris earlier this morning; this thinking is to be akin to interbeing and co-arising -- that people are co-forming their experiences, their evironments, including their mental environments. That one is forming in a dynamic, influential scape of changing conditions (including mental views, physical landscapes and bodies).

So, to me, pragmatically, this brings in some personal choice and responsbility in creating what one lives. I am thinking about (because they are in the news at present and in the past) Amelia Boynton Johnson's legacy and Judge Phyllis Frye's legacy and extant life now. They were significant to the causality of social contructions, which constructions in their earlier lives were strongly opposed by an "larger context"-- a larger social construction and an intimidating and violent social construction. Yet here we are: their construcion of equality and fairness shared in a much larger context than when they began (and their constructions also dependent on other people and context).


For you, when you write: "I am trying to point to the inter-subjective nature of views i.e. that they are social constructions and exist in a larger context," is there something pragmatic to your making this point? Or some next step of understanding that you would now go to/like to express?

That does not seem to be true.  I am able to cover one eye with the hand, gently, and percive the sight sensation with one eye and the dark sensation with the other eye, simultaneously.  It does take a few seconds to let the sensation from the darkened side to come in though, and I have to go into bare attention mode of consciousness.

Psi

And actually , a strange phenomenon is that one can also have one eye open and one eye covered and the entire field of vision darken to blackness, cool.  False qualia, not false qualia.

My point is you don't see a black circle in the middle of the image formed by the open eye, the experience you report confirms this.

Does that mean you did not understand my reply or my reply was not what you expected ? I'm wondering if my explanation of radio waves made sense for you.

If you point out the inconsistencies in my previous reply that could help move the discussion forward.



I was pointing to people identifying with their views i.e. constructing the self. What you refer to "people identify their views, assert their views, mingle and change views" certainly also happens.



I guess you are referring to interbeing and dependent co-arising as presented by Thich Nhat Hanh. This is not what I am trying to point to, I think I'm trying to point to something different. Probably the closest in the Buddhist traditions would be Madhyamaka but that does not really capture the same concept either as I see it. FYI these views are not my invention although I don't think we can talk of views being invented by any one person. But I don't see a lot of value in refering to "authorities" as it moves the debate to personalities.


Yes the idea and the goal is pragmatic conclusions. I can see the thread diverging in multiple directions and I'd rather focus on the questions Chris raised as to whether there are things outside of subjective experience. It seems to me that exploring the view further requires being able to accept that concept (even it it is not 100% certain, in part because nothing is 100% certain). Then it might make sense to discuss the differences that I see between "inter-subjective self" and "interbeing". Maybe they are the same thing or maybe "inter-subjective self" is a poor idea. Maybe both "inter-subjective self" and "interbeing" are poor ideas. An interesting direction if it results in something pragmatic.

This is the valuable part to me in this. I am curious to know on what pragmatic basis you and others would split interbeing, co-arising and basically, possibly be re-branding the knowledge that communities and individuals influence and affect each other in our actions (including views) and constructing and deconstructing structure around them (hence the amazing example of Judge Phyllis Frye, Amelia Boyton Johnson upthread).

I mean if we share a house with someone, a shower, we know we affect each other and then maybe rules and construction arise. Intention and spirit of the law come out, and there is a basis in each person's subjective views and expressed in our conduct, which is mutable... It is not rocket science.  Our mutual influence seems well known and well established in other terms and fields: e.g., states/locational rights, broad civil/human right, personal rights -- deriving from both personal direct perception and people interacting, construction interaction terms, decontructing, reconstructing.

And no worries on the radio waves. I think you may have conflated two examples I gave (combing cats & static with magnetic relations of some mineral rocks) and (nearly?) assumed confusion; I give those examples just to show some views developing from actually perceived experiences; and that Herz did not give rise to something ("radio waves") independent of prior and directly perceived events (probably not cats...). I am okay with the physical sciences having a bit in the background.

Likewise it is the pragmatic implications for practise that interest me most.

Regarding the example of radios waves, you use the term "directly perceived events" what would those be in the case of radio waves ?

Hi, Mark --


And I still agree. I cannot directly perceive radio waves but my radio tuner can turn them into sound waves that I can then hear.


So... if I read your sentences here and glean their meaning I'm perceiving something outside of my subjective experience, yes? Your meaning does not come from any "my" experience but from some "external" phenomena. And that would be not the seeing of the words on the screen but the meaning behind them? I take this to be the analogy you're proposing, but correct me if I'm wrong:  the sound waves I can hear and congnize the meaning of, coming from my radio, is to radio waves just as the interpretation of your written comments is to the words I see on the screen in front of me. The dependency appears to me to be my ability to congnize meaning from perception. Two examples:

Process 1: A person in a radio studio records a program. I use my radio, which translates imperceptable radio waves into sound waves that I can then hear, and that perception, while a subjective experience, takes meaning or is interpreted only because the signal has been translated into something I can percieve.

Process 2: You type some words on your computer while logged into DhO. I login to DhO where you have typed those words which are then displayed on my computer's screen, words that are now visible to me which wouldn't be had you not typed them. These perceived words (signal) while a subjective experience, take on meaning or are interpreted only because the words have been translated into something I can perceive.

Signals can surround me all the time, and do, but unless I can percieve them and translate/cognize them into meaning, they may as well not exist. I cannot get meaning from anything without perception, but the source of the signal, be it "internal" and opposed to "external", matters as to whether I am having a subjective or an intersubjective experience. So my assumption is that intersubjective experiences are meaning or concepts or in Theravada terms "objects" being conveyed via perceptable signals. Meaning in this sense would appear to come from other sentient organisms. It is thus some kind of shared meaning, collectively agreed upon by at least two beings. Those beings who create and define meaning (artists, poets, writers, lecturers, inventors, politicians, etc.) are conveying intersubjective experience -- meaning, and politics and governing and culture.

Yes?  

No?

I think I want to stop here and get feedback from you at this point before going any further. Until I'm confident that I'm fully understanding intersubjective experience as you see it I'll just flounder around and we'll get nowhere in particular.

Ah, just thought of one more example, for clarity:

The word "boot" in the US is used between poeple to convey the meaning "a large protective thing worn on the foot in rain or snow."

The word "boot" in the UK is used between people to convey the meaning "a compartment in my car in which to store luggage and other large items."

The spelling, the sound, the perception itself, is the same, but the meaning is dependent on one's cultural context - it is an agreed upon meaning that depends not just on being able to perceive the signal but on being able to cognize the "proper" meaning being conveyed in a social context by another sentient being.

IOW - the process of dependent origination remains the same, but the meaning being conveyed is shared, collaborated on, social in nature. This meaning does not depend on me - is independent of me -- other beings created it and will continue to use it whether I participate in that sharing or not. 




EDIT: Meaning is not what most meditators are expected to focus on, especially in the pragmatic dharma world. In fact, it has been criticized to some extent by some of the most influential pragmatic dharma minds - Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, etc. I don't think this is done intentionally by those people but in good faith to get people along the dharma path, but when someone says forecefully not to pay attention to your "stuff" but to the process (of perception) then that de-emphasizes meaning and emphasizes process. So let's be clear, I am NOT citicizing Daniel or Kenneth, both of whom I know and both of whom I've learned from. I'm trying to do a deep dive into why the difference between meaning and process doesn't come up and is glossed over in the meditation community that I "grew up" around, and why it might be seen as sort of subversive to some extent, and thus quickly, maybe even angrily, dismissed.

'Nuff said for now.

Your example with the DhO message is interesting I had not thought of it like that but it makes sense to me.

I think there is one point I've not made clear. Let's imagine I write you you and ask you to say "I love you" to someone and you do that but you never let me know if you did it or not. For the sake of discussion let's assume you did say it. It is through my subjective experience that I've created the scenario and sent my message but the results of this are outside of my subjective experience, I will (most likely) never have a different subjective experience whether you did or did not say the words. The point is that your subjective experience is outside/beyond my subjective experience.

An example of a "thing that is outside of my subjective experience but is dependent on my subjective experience" is your subjective experienc e of the words I write. Taking the example further, every time I act I impact others and those impacts may be independent of my subjective experience. 

Another analogy would be all the radio stations that you are not currently listening to. They still exist and impact the world whether you experience them or not. Indirectly those radio stations will probably impact you, for example your boss is in a good mood after listening to a song on the radio. So we could argue that it is in your interests that radio stations behave in a certain way even if you never listen to the radio.

Hopefully the above makes sense and the next point you raise is what is "intersubjective experience". I did not think in those terms earlier. For me experience is by nature subjective so the idea of an "inter-subjective experience" is not obvious (two or more subjective experiences comes to mind). But keeping what Pepper wrote in mind I see you point. You are making a distinction between the experiences I have that are "dependent on the subjective experience of others" and the experiences I have that are "independent of the subjective experience of others".

It might be a moment to raise another aspect that I think Pepper points to. All subjective experience that we can have is influenced by the inter-subjective. For example the very process of how I experience something is conditioned by the culture and society I grow up in. If I'm an Eskimo I'll have a more profound experience when looking at snow because (in part) within that culture there is a large vocabulary for describing snow. For example the colors that one perceives is socially conditioned, this seems pretty weird so I googled for a link http://blogs.transparent.com/language-news/2015/03/18/how-language-changes-our-perception-of-color/

However that might be a side-track. The most important point I think is that the social conditioning is ONLY an inter-subjective agreement. Everything that is socially constructed can be changed by a relatively small number of individuals taking action. The social constructs seem so immovable because individuals do not see themselves as actually forming those structures. Because of "inverted consciousness" and other social conditioning we generally can't see our power of influence (and I would be tempted to argue that because of our attachments we typically don't accept the responsibiltiy that comes with that power).

Pushing these ideas further, one idea of the "inter-subjective self" is to see that there is only an artificial separation between self and society - the self literally is society and vice-versa. Of course this does not mean that I am all of society but it means I have a responsibility that goes beyond my subjective experience.

One place where this differs from concepts like interbeing and other Madhyamaka philosophies is to have hierarchies and relative relationships instead of a flat world where everything is empty. Madhyamaka typically needs to introduce a doctrine of "two truths" to allow for conventional hierarchies etc. I prefer the idea of leaving many things as unknown (and most likely unknowable) in exchange for a model that represents everything as relative and allows for hierachy etc. So my responsibility toward a social construct is not the same as my responsibility toward a natural construct. A certain emotional reaction to a beautiful sunset does not need to be questioned a certain emmotional reaction to 36-24-36 does need to be questioned if others are not to suffer.

I agree  completely. I was actually going to take things to this point but purposely waited until you replied. Meaning is amost entirely a social phenomenon, and social phenomena are always agreements among beings - as you say, intersubjective.


Again, I agree. But this isn't a novel idea for me, even as applied to this conversation. All separations are artificial in the sense that they are constructs - meaning. Meaning that we may accept as "that's just the way things are" -- if we even consider how things are. Often we do not. We uncousciously ignore the obvious -- also conveyed by meaning, by the way.

The power to change "the way things are" comes from recognizing the power of intersubective experience as we (I think we) have now defined it. If we do not think we have that power, especially if we don't see the nature of it, or if we chose to ognore it, we can't change anything and remain at the mercy of all those other intersubjective experiences out there, the ones we perceive directly or indirectly, like the radio waves others are listening to and acting on that we may not.

This is Indra's Net. An incredible tangle of interconnected subjective and intersubjective influences.

(As an aside, this is a very organic-feeling concept, kind of like talking about DNA -- if you don't know of or choose ignore DNA (inter-subjective experiences) you cannot re-engineer an organism (society).)

I think we may have reached a turning point in the discussion but I'm not sure -- do we agree on things at least to this point?


EDIT: By the way, Katy Steger pointed all of this out in a post yesterday, thus helping it to sink in for me. She used different words but described the same things.

I wonder what you are meaning when you say "all separations are artificial". This might be important as I don't agree with that statement. I named one separation (self and society) and I would not confer this on to everything. Indra's Net implies everything is interconnected with everything and that to me is very problematic.


I made a similar remark to Katy regarding the concern I see with interbeing. For example it seems that can lead to an imbalanced focus on mindfulness and perhaps certain disdain for intellect.

The "conclusions" I'm drawing in regards to empowering an individual to act within society are not* a shock to you. But I'm not claiming those represent  the "inter-subjective self".

I agree that recognizing the power of intersubjective experience can increase out power to change. But I also think there are many people who would agree on an intellectual level without acting. This is partly why I used the term "inter-subjective self" because it raises a question of responsibility.

It would be fascinating to hear how the understanding of Indra's Net impacts your practise and whether those practises are derived from insight into Indra's Net.

A loaded question for you When you see someody else behaving in a racist way do you also see yourself as racist because of their behavior ?

* edit

** interesting post in another thread http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5772669#_19_message_5774029 it is almost the opposite of what we are describing and I suspect the majority view.

No, that seems like an invalid conclusion.  One can clearly see both the field of vision sensations with the open eye, and the field of darkness with the closed eye, you just have to pay attention, it is there.  There should and would not be a black circle displayed in the field of vision with the open eye.  The darkness vision of the closed eye is to be seen, in the present moment, you just have to be able to be aware of noticing the eye sensation with the eye closed.

Perhaps you are confusing all of this with the phenomenon of the blind spot.  It is in this phenomenon that there is indeed a blind spot that is filled in by the mind, and thus do not see the blind spot, and yes, we do generally speaking, fall for that illusion, along with many other types of illusions and mental fabrications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision)

Indra's net implies that there is a maze of interconnections that affect things. It's too far to go to say "everything is interconnected with everything else." I have always taken Indra's Net to mean that we cannot track all of the affecting interconnections. That's as far as I would be willing to take the concept. Clearly there are things that are more directly connected and things that are indirectly connected and things that aren't connected. This is a scale, not is/is not binary.

I brought this concept up as a way to try to find a common understanding of intersubjective experience. It doesn't really affect my practice at all, nor does my practice affect the concept. What were you looking for by asking the question?

BTW -- I'm going to conceded your point on separation as I don't feel it's important and not helpful to this discussion. Since I added it today I'm taking it back  



Seriously? Instead of a loaded question maybe you could offer a descriptive definition?

I feel like you're jumping around a bit Mark, and I'm not sure why. I feel like I might be getting somewhere and then the goal gets moved. I'm doing a lot of work, trying my best to understand what you're getting at, being as straightforward as I can, yet not receiving acknowledgement that I'm even close. Is this because you aren't sure what you're getting at? You have, on occasion, hinted at that. 

So ... do we agree on the definition of intersubjective or not? I don't think we can move on to other concepts until I'm convinced we agree on at least that. I can't tell ffrom your replies. I simple "yes" or "no" would be nice, or at least a hint at what I might not be getting.


Your last post on the other DhO topic you linked to:  


I find this concerning from the point of view of someone who has engaged you in conversation in a straightforward manner. At this point I'm wondering if that has been misplaced effort. I feel like I/we here are being tested.

I'm feeing like we might be just playing something of a game - float this concept, never quite reveal or share your view, test these folks on DhO out on a few things and see what they say. Please tell me I'm wrong. Or better yet - tell me what you believe and how you practice. I'm all for sharing. If you want to learn about my practice I can point you to my online practice log - it's long and is no doubt a boring read, but it's available.

I'm going to stop here and wait for your reply, hoping it will be something more direct in regard to whether we agree on the defintion of subjective vs intersubjective.



 

I took my understanding of Indra's Net from the wiki - the analogy presented is an infinite web of jewels "If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring."

It seems you are referring to something other than Indra's Net, which is fine. I think there is some frustration on my side because it can feel a bit like "oh you are just describing interbeing" or "oh you are just describing Indra's Net". I don't see any harm in bringing up those terms but it then seems I get the job of finding the actual definition. Then when I present the definition the goal posts shift "oh no not Indra's Net but my interpretation of Indra's Net". This is understandable but I would far prefer a discussion where people use their own understanding as much as possible. It is one of the problems I have with academic style writing, by using sophisticated terms people are able to hide their misunderstanding. If someone understands something well then they are usually able to explain it in simple terms. 

On a related point, I would guess that Pepper is aware of concepts like Indra's Net, certainly he is aware of Interbeing, if he was pointing at that I don't think he would bother with the article and instead just reference one of those concepts.


I was assuming that because you referred to Indra's Net it was something that was central to your understanding outside of this conversation. I was surprised and wondering how that manifests in a pragmatic way.

At the moment it seems you used the term Indra's Net when your own words might have been better. Because you made the analogy with Indra's Net as a demonstration of a common understanding of "intersubjective experience" this lead me down a path of thinking that we had a very different understanding.

Given the misunderstanding of Indra's Net I tihnk we do need to back up a step. I think the question above is a good one and a very tough one. My answer would be no, I do not have that subjective experience. But I am thinking that if I had integrated the "inter-subjective self" that we are struggling to define, then I would/should have that experience. At the moment it is more conceptual. I can see something along those lines in how I interact with some things, for example I can't see art without seeing that as a social construction, the artists appears more like a brush than a creator in this sense. That does not stop me from also seeing the artist as unique, talented and creative.



I think we probably both have that feeling. I've tried to be explicit in saying that we are co-constructing an understanding - I really mean that. This is not an exercise of me telling you what the answer is - we are exploring something and I hope we'll reach agreement and insight.

I think I'm very wary of having the concept cast into an existing view, so I probably over reacted to Indra's Net. I want to explore the view not cast it into an existing view. The results may be a profound understanding of an existing view and that would be great as one could take that view and run with it.



A concise definition from you that I could say yes or no to would have been nice there Certainly there is a lot of agreement on important points:

* Common ground for interpreting dependent origination (subjective experience)
* Common ground regarding things existing outside of subjective experience
* Agreement of the self being largely a social construction
* Agreement that society emerges from subjective experience, is dependent on it
* Several other points...

Going back to an earlier post of yours: "Those beings who create and define meaning (artists, poets, writers, lecturers, inventors, politicians, etc.) are conveying intersubjective experience -- meaning, and politics and governing and culture."

Perhaps I should clarify that I don't think there is such a thing as a shared experience, one can only have subjective experience. I think you are referring to "intersubjective experience" as shared meaning. I certainly agree with you that meaning is socially constructed.

If we define "intersubjective experience" as the fact that practically all subjective experience is socially constructed (but not solely dependent on that) and the social construction is itself a shared agreement between individuals, then "yes"

So perhaps what we could do is replace "subjective experience" with "intersubjective experience" as a way of making it clear that we are talking about "subjective experience" in a different way than it is typically understood ?




The reference to 100% proof is followed by an emoticon that was meant to convey humor. Poor joke it seems as it was misunderstood by more than one.

In general I do perceive an over-emphasis on the subjective experience (as defined above) because it contradicts with what we are describing as intersubjective experience.

I also like to keep an attitude of "don't know" regarding ultimate truths. If I start presenting ultimate truths then please get concerned!



You are wrong, but it is a fair concern on your part.



I see this as a co-construction - we are shaping our beliefs - something we can do painlessly if we are not identifying with a view.

I hope we are back on track

Mark, I'm taking you at your word that what I suggested is not your intent to but I ask you to take me at my word that that is how it's coming across. You're very clearly not happy with the emphasis on subjective experience here on DhO. I get that and I'm interested in alternative ways of seeing and of practicing. It seems to me you're anticipating certain answers from folks here, answers that you seem to be critical of, adding to my perception that this is more than what it appears on the surface. It's fine if we don't agree on this but I do want to share my frustrations.

Apologies for my attempt to find common ground by bringing up Indra's Net. I had no idea what the Wiki definition was but I'm obviously out of sync with it. I was going from memory and previous reading from somewhere that I can't even recall at this point. I have no idea if Tom Pepper knows what it is.

I'm pretty sure that until there's a pretty clear, concise definition of what you're searching for and asking for help to define - intersubjective experience - you will continue to get reactions that frustrate you, such as, "Oh, you're describing such and such or so and so concept." Let me humbly suggest to you that you're getting cloudy descriptions in return for cloudy descriptions. It's no one's fault and it's only worsened by the nature of this interaction - we're doing this without any interpersonal signals beyond plain ascii text and a few emoticons. I don't think it's surprising that Tom Pepper hasn't laid down a defintion, either, unless he actually has and I'm not aware of it. It's pretty obvoius at this point that this is something that's not easy or clear, and I hold out the distinct possibility that we're chasing a chimera. 


It has that feel to me.


I was hoping for that kind of direct acknowedgement yesterday   

Yes.

I'm not sure where to go from here. If we can agree on this much what else is there to explore?  You seem to want to take this in the direction of social action.

I almost always hit the submit button too quickly - I have one more thing to say. Katy made a comment the other day that echoes with me: none of this appears to be new and it just doesn't seem complex. It's all familiar territory and we seem to be struggling to grasp.... what?

She said:

I wrote "a fair concern" implying that I do take you at your word. I would not say that I'm not happy about the focus on DhO. It is what it is and it also says something about the forum. I like to have an idea of where I'm heading so I'm very interested in behaviour changes as people progress in their practise. The results can be very different and we choose those results to some extent. I think I'm being fairly objective about the focus here and stating that is being interpreted as criticism and/or dissatisfaction. If DhO was the only social interaction I had then that might be my reaction. I'm not expecting DhO to address all my concerns. It also seems fair to test my assumptions - so asking questions like I did on the mindfulness thread.

The way I communicate tends to have people imagine things are much more planned than the reality. I'm critical of answers that are using technical terms like "Indra's Net" or "Interbeing" if there is not an understanding of the implications behind that. I'd rather people use their own words in some cases.

I likewise have frustrations but I think the situation is better served by my focusing on the subject and hopefully progress on that fornt will address your concerns and mine.

No problem, as I said I over reacted to it.


Without looking upthread, I have the impression it was you who wanted to define inter-subjective experience and introduced that phrase. Funnily enough I ended up having to define the term you introduced But i think it was a worthy diversion.

A distinct possibility. But I try not to look for proof of the chimera yet because it is very easy to justify my personal view if I look to falsify the view of others.


Understandable but I think the exploration of a view is better served by not following those sorts of feelings. Buddhism like lots of philosophies attempts to present an all inclusive/coherent picture. This can make it blind to the assumptions being made because it seems coherent from within that view. The incoherence can only be seen by putting the view aside, even for a moment.


I'll try an analogy. There is nothing particularly insightful about non-self, any materialist or athiest would say it is obvious. But what seems clear from so many reports is that an intellectual understanding of that and an experience of that are radically different. If life is experienced with non-self then it is liberating. That the conclusions we have drawn lead to an intellectual agreement like "none of this appears to be new and it just doesn't seem complex" I think this is a good sign. There have however been some insights even up to here. I think your doubts about "things outside of subjective experience" or Katy's description of the direct experience of radio waves show that what might appear obvious at the end was not obvious at the beginning. Anyway those are minor details.

The concept that most interests me is the "inter-subjective self" and now that we've defined the term "inter-subjective experience" it might make more sense to call this the "socially constructed self". Both phrases are intended to point to the same thing.

As a discussion on emptiness (I really think that term is a poor choice...) can result in an intellectual understanding of emptiness there is still a very long path to tread to experience everything as empty. Here I think we have a similar situation - the term "socially constructed self" has a clearer meaning for us but what would it mean to experience the world in that way ?

Sure intellectually I know that people around me but consider the examples Katy gave "Our mutual influence seems well known and well established in other terms and fields: e.g., states/locational rights, broad civil/human right, personal rights" These are all individual rights i.e. they fit within a view of the individual as being separate "I have civil rights", "I own that" etc. I think a lived experience of Interbeing would not lead to examples like that.

This is somewhat in line with Pepper. He is saying "full strength anatman" is rarely adopted by Buddhists. We might say that full strength anatman had led us to the "socially constructed self". Then the next job would be to experience "socially constructed non-self" then the "full strnegth socially constructed non-self"

Can you share an answer to the question: When you see someody else behaving in a racist way do you also see yourself as racist because of their behavior ?

Would someone who experiences the "socially constructed self" have that experience ?

To take a further leap - we may first need to "wake up" to an experience of a "socially constructed self" before that can be deconstructed and we can realize a "socially constructed non-self".  Cloudy decsriptions I'm sorry but the best I can do for now!

Would this be to say that the socially constructed self would be similar to referrring to a mind that is socially conditioned, and all that goes along with that.  

And a socially constructed non self be referring to a mind that is liberated from social conditioning, and all that goes along with that.

In other words, one can not let go of social conditioning if one does not first recognize social conditioning.  It may be just the terminology being used here.  I would go as far to call these social conditioning, samskaras, and further to say that what may be seen as social conditioning actually has a deeper level.  The deeper level being the evolutionary conditioning that displays itself as social constructs.

For example, Churches and Rabbits

Humans build Churches and Rabbits make rabbit holes.  I would say both are a product of evolutionary instinct, while one may seem more complex in design than the other, they serve the same basic mammalian function, satisfying some instinct of love and togetherness.

And to be free of social conditioning, one would be able to feel love and togetherness, independent of rabbit holes and institutions.

Further, it seems to me that the socially constructed self is actually shared mental patterns, but not a mental pattern that is external and separate from the individual.  The social physical constructs seem to be representations of the internal mind of individuals.  In other words, there are thought patterns, and these thought patterns are shared in common with others, then these thought patterns RePresent themselves in the world.

Though, I will admit that there is a possiblity of the existence of a Universal Consciousness, a Morphogenic Field , Akashic Records, which we all share, that would exist both internally and externally.  


Psi

Sidenote, the word Churches could be easily replaced with many other words, i.e. Temple, Corporate Tower, College, Monastery, Office Building, School, Shopping Mall, etc  All rabbit holes

Upthread you'll see what we are referring to as "socialy constructed self" but it is not the same thing as what I understand by "socially conditioned mind".

I think the socially conditioned mind is a fairly common concept and we would not have such a long discussion about this, neither would others like Pepper write articles if the goal was to point to a widely known concept like social conditioning.

I think behind "socially conditioned mind" there is an idea of subjective experience and how this can be deconstructed within/by the individual. The "socialy constructed self" implies that there is only an intersubjective experience i.e. it is a non-sense to situate this within an individual mind.

Well, all this could be, like I said earlier.  So, is the proposed intersubjectivity  a product of thought communities and mind sharing?  Not one mind operating within a sphere of conssciousness, but many minds enveloped as one within a sphere of consciousness?  Then, this idea coud be extended, but let us start slowly.  

Woould intersubjectivity be like a collective mind consciousness moving to the same tune, like crowd behavior and mass delusion phenomenon, pointed to earlier.  i.e. where a whole crowd of people share a hallucination.  It seems not scientifically possible for a whole crowd to share a halluciantion, yet it happens.  And this points to intersubjectivity, or a sharing of consciousness, in the moment.  Minds may be connected in more ways than have yet to be proven.

So, it may be non sense to equate anything with an individual mind, there may just be mind.  Mind with no individual involved, but then we are going right back to anatta.  

This may also be why the practice of Metta seems to have such a real effect , it envelops many minds into the fold of Metta.  And, dangerously enough , so does anger and greed.  Anger can spread like wildfire through minds, causing mass anger, triggering and perpetuating a field of anger.

These fields of mind energy, spread and are rebroadcast through minds.  I have referred to this before with the tuning fork analogy.  Hit one tuning fork and the other tuning forks will respond by vibrating with the same frequency.  There is no reason to think that minds do not do the same with waves of mind energy also.  Which would make it ever more important to practice and maintain wholesomeness, as it springs forth and emanates around us all.

I think intersubjectivity points to the fact that there is no separateness of anything, mind,matter,energy,  everything is indeed interrelated.  But, by understanding that intersubjectivity , at a deeper understanding, it is also not separated from minds, it goes both ways.  Intersubjectivity works both through minds and from minds.

That there is an internal and external is actually a mirage.  Which would explain all the long articles and discussions.  

Psi

That is not the concept we are discussing in this thread. I think what you are implying is close to the "inverted consciousness" that was discussed upthread. Because this thread is so deep now I'd rather keep it narrowly focused on what Chris and I were discussing. Maybe start another thread on the topic you are raising.

When this kind of thing has happened in my presence I notice several internal reactions:

- I feel uncomfortable and "icky" and do not want to be present for the experience
- I'm embarrassed and upset for the person who is the object of the behavior
- I'm happy it wasn't me that exhibited the racist behavior
- I'm aware of the fact that I'm not free of prejudice
- I'm glad I don't act those prejudices out
- I'm disappointed in the person who did, especially if it's a relative or a friend because I expect better behavior

So yes, I see that I, too, have innate prejudices.


Since I think I'm a socially constructed self, at least to the extent that we've been able to agree on what that is, yes.

Fair?

Hi Chris,

That is a generous answer thank you. It shows a lot of compassion.

If we are going to explore this then I think I need to challenge you. I don't think there is a black/white answer and I agree we are socially constructed selves.

In your reply I think it is clear that you are not taking personal responsibility for the other person's racism. That is understandable and I'd have the same reaction. But the socially constructed self (SCS) is not separate from that racism, racism is there because the SCS enables it. 

That probably sounds quite harsh. I've been thinking about this and I think it takes a lot of courage to see it this way. It reminds me a bit of shadow work, most people don't want to look because it is ugly but shadow work is also liberating.

I'll try an analogy. With more realization of non-self there can be waves of negative emotion. Many actions or intentions that I would have unconsciously just let slide don't slide and I'm left to ponder not only my suffering but the suffering I cause. In the big picture it is not a big deal, it is far from pleasant but I would rather be aware than not. The practise of meditation makes one more mindful of both the positive and negative. I think there may be practises that could have a similar impact regarding the SCS. 

So to clarify, the SCS is in my mind not seeing that "I, too, have innate prejudices" but seeing that "I enable racism"

We need to be careful about the use of the word "I" here because it is referring to the SCS not to your subjective expereince which is almost certainly not going to appreciate being called racist for someone elses actions!

I'll stop here to get your feedback. I hope I treaded softly there.

Can you take a stab at decsibing those practices? I think that woud be a logical next step. What do we need to better observe, and how can we observe it, if we want to optimize for more awareness of the socially constructed self?

By the way, I would argue that at this point we're probably confusing people by using the word "self" in the name of this. I think, from personal experience, that it gets misinterpreted as I/me/mine when we actually mean something different. I don't have a new word to suggest, though.

There are inevitably more reactions and decisions that I'd be having and making depending on the nature of the incident. The difference between personal responsibility as classically defined and a socially constructed version is not very clear. You had to do some dancing to avoid me thinking you were accusing me of being a racist.

While logically that sounds good, still there are people who changed the world who did not set out to do it specifically or thought much about the intersubjective, and there are many who thought a lot about it, studied hard, etc, and got little done.  I good example would be what goes viral on youtube, results from such efforts are hard to predict just from logic alone.  
-Eva