AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by xeno6696
Post reply
Reply to the message by
xeno6696
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > > Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition. > > > > Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. > This rings of dissonance again for me. No self [i]versus[/i] free will however partial. [color=#f00]My will is dependent on its environment[/color] ... > ... It is, and it isn't. It's a classic Zen Koan. -The more you sit down and exercise your will--insanely--by doing absolutely nothing at all, you learn to watch all of these impulses. But as dependent your will is upon its environment, lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object. If you sit still and "observe" your thoughts and impulses as they arrive in your mind, if you prevent yourself from entering into the flow of thoughts as they waft by your eyes, you are making a stunning observation:-[i]Something [/i]is separate from these thoughts, [i]something [/i]that can choose to be enveloped by them, can just watch them go by. It's Dennett's version of free will: [i]You [/i]don't choose what bubbles up from below, but [i]something [/i] allows you to say yes or no. And that [i]something [/i]can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-> > I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. > > I understand Matt, I find it's not just passions but everyday events that control me. I'm not saying there is no feedback to the environment, but any line I draw between my 'self' and its environment is purely arbitrary. > -It is until you realize something like what I stated above: [i]something [/i]exists that allows you to reflect on your mind and not be an active participant. What would you call this thing, if not free will? -As a side note, after about 15 minutes, something kind of miraculous happens->The mind under the surface usually stops bubbling things up to the "observer" function, or at least begins to quiet. (How much caffeine did I have that day?) -You can slow your mind down, through [i]conscious [/i]will. What is that, if not free will?-> > Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago... > > This reminds me of the much maligned Blackmore and her first of the [i]Ten Zen Questions[/i], [b]Am I conscious now?[/b] After much meditating on her part the conclusion she came to was the answer is [i]No[/i]. > > Even without any meditating, just simply interrogating my experience, I can see why she would say this. > -Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so: -Even the act of engaging in meditation is an act of conscious volition. You're forcing yourself to "stop acting" and just observe. By realizing that there is a flow, and that you are caught up in it, you are realizing free will. This is extremely resonant with Dennett's idea of a "fettered" or "limited" free will. [It is also the exact idea of free will and its relationship with Zen.] -For an observer to exist in the first place, it is [i]necessary [/i]to be able to [i]remove yourself[/i] from the raging river of consciousness. THAT is free will, consciously exercised. Buddhism's underlying goal (though it traditionally denies goals) is to exercise our ability to be an observer. In Hindu tradition, this "observer" is the soul itself.-[EDITED]
OK - Submit
Preview