Have others noticed this?

[Orrex]

In my admittedly limited experience, every person I've met in real life who claims to be a Taoist/Buddhist is in fact a kind of flaccid agnostic who's read a book about Eastern mysticism (or watched The Matrix) and thereafter decided that it would seem cool to be perceived as distinctively esoteric.

I admit also that every person I've met who's made that assertion was in a college town and between the ages of 18 and ~30, so obviously the demographics may play a part.

Is my tone patronizing and sarcastic? You betcha! Why? Because I'm fed up with people making the bullshit assertion that quantum physics has significant parallels with Tao philosophy, to name just one of the many inane pop-culture-Buddhist slogans so common among these so-called believers.

But what is it about this mysterious Oriental Belief System that inspires such casual devotion from otherwise spiritually disconnected Western youth?

[Why Syzygy]

1. can you give an example?

of the relationship between quantum physics and Tao?

[Orrex]

2. No

At least, I can't give one that I accept.

But typically it takes the form of a limp "Heisenberg and Tao philosophy both point out that you can't really know anything" sort of statement.

Or else the (usually undocumented) assertion that "many quantum physicists" have embraced Eastern philosophy after making some discover or another.

At some point the believer will offer up The Dancing Wu Li Masters as some kind of substantiating evidence.

[EST]

19. My own exposure to this (late '70s)

came in the form of a Dr. Seuss style book, pointing out that with the Heisenberg uncertainty and time dilation, every electron in the universe could be considered one single electron. For true believers, the discovery of entanglement was an important confirmation.
One of those things where, if you look at it just right and squint your left eye, it could be barely possible. Good enough, for some.

[madeline_con]

104. The Tao of Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics


Hinduism & Quantum Physics

http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage1.htm


FWIW....

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Ever tried to follow an Alan Watts lecture from beginning to end?

I can't.

[amitten]

4. Who cares?

I don't personally give a damn about anyone's religious beliefs. To each his/her own, I say. Whatever gets you through!

[silverweb]

5. What's your point?

And what's your problem with other people pursuing "thoughtful introspection" in their own way? People go through "phases" in the process of their seeking/learning. As long as they're not forcing their momentary or long-term beliefs on you, why should you care?

[Orrex]

12. Well, this is the religion/theology group, right?

I'm discussing what I identify as a problematic religious/theological trend.

I find that a sector of our culture profits (financially or otherwise) from this gobbledygook, often foisted upon an audience ill equipped to form critical assessments about the claims being made.

I have no problem with "seeking/learning" if the fruits of that labor don't come back to screw me.

The foolish Tao/QED connection is the symptom I chose to highlight because it is common in my experience, but there are countless others.

This kind of unsubstantiated magical thinking is poisonous to reason and leads to an embrace of all kinds of nonsense. We are currently ruled by a regime based on unsubtantiated faith-based claims, and such a regime can only come into power when permitted by a culture trained to embrace evidence-free claims.

[kwassa]

15. I think this is a false conclusion

"This kind of unsubstantiated magical thinking is poisonous to reason and leads to an embrace of all kinds of nonsense."

It isn't poisonous to reason, nor is it nonsense.

[petgoat]

18. unsubstantiated magical thinking

isn't necessarily poisonous to reason, but it can get in the way.

A lot of kids aren't ready to reason anyway. If they've been guided in
rational analysis at home, maybe. But few are. People come to rationality
only when they need to and want to, and few ever find it necessary. And
sometimes the smartest people are the most irrational, because their
intellectual gifts guide them to comfortable surroundings and compensate
for their logical mistakes.

[kwassa]

24. I disagree, rational analysis is everywhere

The world runs on it, schools run on it, kids get it every day.

You must mean something different by the term because everyone uses rationality every day.

[Silent3]

41. What about *good* rational analysis?

Good rational analysis is certainly not found "everywhere". If rational analysis were high school algebra, then most people stop with adding single digit numbers, get the wrong answer most of the time at that, and are totally stumped by multiplication tables.

What passes for "rationality" in this world most of the time is any tough decision made with the smallest modicum of attempted objectivity, or stubbornly cold refusal to consider any emotional factors (rationality and emotion are not opposites just because they can be difficult to reconcile) in a decision, or cynicism, or pig-headed denial of whatever doesn't fit into one's all-too-narrow outlook.

These things are not "rational analysis", but many people act as if they are -- not just the people performing such faux rationality, but similarly irrational people who, not liking what such a faux-rational person is saying or doing, will say that this person is being too "rational", and of course suggest that what's lacking is the supposed opposites of rationality, such as "caring", "warmth", "understanding", and "being more human".

[silverweb]

16. Apples and oranges.

In your original post, you're attacking people who latch on to vaguely Eastern, "mystical" philosophies. In this most recent post, though, you (rightfully) worry that we are "ruled by a regime based on unsubtantiated faith-based claims."

You cannot equate the two.

The difference is this: The first group wants only to seek/experience for themselves as part of their own mental/spiritual growth. The second group, however, encourages, demands, and uses blind faith to rule for personal power.

That's a HUGE difference!

[Orrex]

20. Not equating the beliefs themselves, but the underlying pattern of thought

One person's "mental/spiritual growth" is another person's crowbar by which to rule.

I reject any embrace of magical thinking, be it "ghosts in the attic" or "we're all part of the Tao" or whatever else. Show me the evidence, or don't pester me.

We are, as a culture, carefully trained to disable our skills of critical assessment, and it's my view that over-indulgence of "searching and experimenting" can lead one down the garden path to a big, steaming pile of shit.

Spiritual growth is nifty, I guess, for those who seek it.

[silverweb]

22. Okay,

Then your view, by seeking to overthrow all others, is seeking dominance in much the same way that fundamentalists do.

Go ahead and reject it for yourself. That's fine. But you have no right to disparage those who are only seeking their own personal path.

[Orrex]

25. Oh, come on!

You can do better than a postmodern "power structure" dismissal.

By the same token you are, by your seeking to disuade me from my view, seeking dominance over my view. I have as much "right" to disparage nonsensical belief systems as you have to disparage my rejection of them.

[silverweb]

26. Have at it.

:eyes:

[manic expression]

100. Once again

you are flat out incorrect.

What the other poster said was that you are seeking dominance over other views, which is as bad as many fundamentalists. That is trying to show you how misled this sentiment is, and it is not trying to disuade you from your views.

You are trying to put dominance over other views. Someone else criticized your doing so, NOT YOUR VIEWS. That is completely different than seeking dominance over your views, because the target was your way of trying to assert yourself.

Let's see if this helps:

The disparaging of your disparaging of beliefs.

Is different than.

Your disparaging of beliefs.

[silverweb]

102. Thank you.

I have chosen to not participate further in this discussion, but I do appreciate your defense of and clarification of what I was trying to say.

:hi:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. As I understand it...

Real practice of both Buddhism and Taoism is a rather arduous discipline. Do these people seem like they are following arduous disciplines?

[Orrex]

13. Not at all

That's kind of my objection, in fact. They embrace the pop-culture aspects of the belief system and maybe get a cool tattoo, but otherwise they're just run-of-the-mill Western kids who think that "one hand clapping" is a breakthrough of theoretical physics and who demonstrate no particular spiritual discipline.

I'm not disparaging the lack of spiritual discipline, by the way, because I sure as hell don't have any.

[papau]

7. Interesting- I am looking forward to te replies you get - my own age cohort

is the post 60 crowd and here I find many Christians who are also Buddhist, Jews that are also Buddhist, etc.

"otherwise spiritually disconnected Western youth" seems more the situation outside of the US and in then US, but that is just from my very limited personal experience.

I look forward to reading the responses you get.

:-)

[Zensea]

8. Maybe you need to get out of your limited experience

in order to make a valid judgement.
Doesn't look like the guy who wrote the Tao of Physics is exactly unqualified.
http://www.fritjofcapra.net/resume.html
Dr. Capra is the author of four international bestsellers, The Tao of Physics (1975), The Turning Point (1982), Uncommon Wisdom (1988), and The Web of Life (1996). He coauthored Green Politics (1984), Belonging to the Universe (1991), and EcoManagement (1993), and coedited Steering Business Toward Sustainability (1995). His most recent book, The Hidden Connections, was published in 2002. Please see bibliography for full details.

After receiving his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna in 1966, Capra did research in particle physics at the University of Paris (1966-68), the University of California at Santa Cruz (1968-70), the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1970), Imperial College, University of London (1971-74), and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California (1975-88). He also taught at U.C. Santa Cruz, U.C. Berkeley, and San Francisco State University.

He probably would just laugh at your act of being patronizing and sarcastic.

Maybe every person you've met who claims to be buddhist is as you say, but all you're revealing by your comments are things about yourself.

[Orrex]

23. Well, that's one. Super.

You might check out "Fashionable Nonsense" for a discussion of the abuses of intellectual niches by people generally unqualified to comment on them.

I don't know much about Capra's qualifications, but in his resume I don't see a mention of his deep exploration of Tao philosophy. Surely it must be at least as profound as his understanding of physics, if he feels qualified to make something of a career linking the two.



And while I've got you on the phone, what do you suppose I'm "revealing" by my comments, exactly? An intolerance of feel-good mysticism? A distaste for magical thinking? Antipathy toward uncritical thought?

Do tell.

[Zensea]

32. You are revealing your limited experience

like I already said.
You are making broad generalizations about buddhism and about people who tie buddhism with physics based on young "coffee house radicals."
Also making the argument about faith-based perspectives in relation to buddhism indicates to me that you probably don't have much understanding of buddhism since buddhism is not about faith-based anything, is not about magical thinking or feel good mysticism.
Sounds to me like your target is probably actually new age thinking -- but that's a quite different thing than buddhism.

[Orrex]

39. I would phrase it differently

Rather than a limited experience with Buddhism, it is my limited ability to tolerate bullshit nonsense that I'm discussing here.

Does Eastern philosophy, including its subsets like tai chi, discuss "spritual energy" or "energy movement" or "energy balance" or the like?
That's magical thinking.

Does Eastern philosophy discuss the existence and or nature of a soul or enduring spirit?
That's magical thinking.

Does Eastern philosohpy discuss something like karma or wyrd or fate?
That's magical thinking.

Does Eastern philosophy discuss the harmonious oneness between the perceived-self and the universe?
That's magical thinking.

There is, in our culture, a great deal of overlap between western-distilled Buddhism and New Age thinking, so it is entirely appropriate to discuss one in terms of the other. If I were immersed in Eastern culture, I would likely discuss nonsensical magical thinking in different terms.

[Zensea]

42. You're just digging yourself deeper

So, let me get this straight -- the mushy thinking you're objecting to justifies mushy thinking on your part?

That is, some "western-distilled" buddhism overlaps with new age thinking, there's no doubt about that -- but critiquing the whole on the basis of a particular aspect is certainly not rigorous thinking or analysis & I can tell by the list of questions you are asking that you equate New Age and Buddhism --- but they are not equivalent at all. Your excuse for conflating the two is just that - an excuse. It also looks like you might be confusing Hinduism with Buddhism.

I'm not really that interested in getting into an extended debate on the subject though, you've obviously got your prejudices on the subject and a filter through which you are perceiving things.

[Orrex]

43. Enlighten me

Your assertion is that Buddhism makes no assertions about supernatural matters, but it's still a religion?

Help me out here--why is it a religion, then?

[Zensea]

44. Did I say it was a religion?

I don't think I did.

Actually I think I've been being more or less Socratic -- that is saying what buddhism is not, more than what it is and making comments about what I perceive as your over-generalizations and the nature of them.

You're on your own for the rest. I made the points I wanted to make.

[Orrex]

45. I beg your pardon, but several hundred million call it a religion

The fact that you do not is, honestly, irrelevant.

Perhaps you've made the points that you wanted to make, but I don't find them convincing or even significant.

[Zensea]

47. Like I care!!!

So -- do you think buddhists believe in god or God?
Doesn't religion (as the word is used by most people - maybe even several hunred million) usually mean a belief in the existence of God?

Think about that.


One way or the other though :evilgrin: it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if you're convinced.
Get over yourself.

[Orrex]

51. Ah! I think I now comprehend your misunderstanding.

A religion can entail the belief in a supernatural deity, but it doesn't need to. A religion entails an embrace, acceptance, or worship of a supernatural force, entity, or principal, whether it be God, karma, or the Dharmakaya.

Believers in a religion, therefore, carefully train themselves to accept the existence of supernatural phenomena even (and especially) when faced with a total lack of confirming evidence.

Think about that.

[Zensea]

55. In all seriousness

I think buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion.
At least many manifestations of it are.
I'm thinking of the varieties that are about stripping away illusion and viewing existence as being an illusion or a product of a series of filters that we create between our selves and "reality"
... the varieties that are not particularly interested in the supernatural and which view the belief in the supernatural as being yet another illusion.
If I had the book with me, I could provide an exact quote to this effect which speaks of how what is important is what happens right now in this life, not some imagined past or future life.
These are close to the subject also --
"The Buddha seal is this openness, where there is no conditioning, no division between yourself and the object, no division between yourself and your life."
or this quote from Chogyam Trunpa
"The basic notion of non-theistic symbolism is that whatever exists in our life-our birth, our death, our sickness, our marriage, our business adventure, our educational adventure-is based on symbolism of some kind. This type of symbolism may not be the vivid visions you see by tuning your system into a mystical state of mind, such as fantastic auras with symbols in the middle.

In fact, from the point of view of non-theism, such perceptions are regarded as bullshit. Maybe you need more rest or another cup of coffee. We do not go along with any kind of high-falluting colorful adventures, cosmic explosions of color after color, or fantastic visions. Looking for magical messages, as opposed to a direct relationship, creates a barrier to understanding symbolism."

Nothing supernatural about that stuff.

[Orrex]

63. But to be fair, that's just one interpretation

If I am guilty of misrepresenting Buddhism via a nonrepresentative sample, so is that quote from Chogyam Trunpa.

I suppose it can be said that some Buddhists go along with that interpretation; similarly, the Dalai Lama has publicly stated that if science and the philosophy are in conflict, then science trumps philosophy. Bravo! (and I mean that sincerely)

But I've encountered plenty of the other kind, for whom the supernatural stuff is right in line with the grounded-in-the-physical philosophy.

That's the crowd whose magical thinking I'm addressing. Well, along with thematically analogous New Age pseudomystics...

[Zensea]

69. Trungpa nonrepresentative of buddhist thought? LOL

I was beginning to give you the benefit of the doubt because in some of the posts/replies to others it looked like you might have more knowledge of this than I was giving you credit for -- but taking the position that Trungpa is nonrepresentative of buddhist thought kind of hurts your cred.

[Orrex]

71. Trungpa speaks for all 780 million? Okay.

Fine. But that means an embrace of reincarnation, which is a supernatural/religious doctrine.

[Zensea]

73. That's not what I said

However, saying Trungpa is not representative of buddhist thought is like saying the Dalai Lama is not representative of buddhist thought or that the Pope is not representative of Catholic thought.
Thought.
Speaking for the 780 million is a different thing and NOT what I said.

I'm not interested in playing these rhetorical games anymore.
It looks to me like you're just trying to score points and are not interested in actual discussion.

[Orrex]

74. Hold on a second

I observed that 780 million call Buddhism a religion, and in a subsequent reply you offered Trungpa's statment in apparent rebuttal.

Do you see how that comes across as offering up of a single viewpoint in refutation of 780 million?

Still, I grant that my response was based on a misreading of your intent: Trungpa is clearly qualified to speak about the religion and philosophy, whereas I thought you were holding him up as a representative of Buddhists as a whole.

Again, though, that leaves us with the supernatural/religious doctrine of reincarnation. How do you reconcile this with your assertion that Buddhism does not entail supernatural elements?

[hunter]

28. Yes, The Tao of Physics.

I read that when it was first published.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570625190/104-7406163-8702346?v=glance&n=283155

Before this it was people smoking pot and discussing Nietzsche. You got extra points if you could do it in German.

In any case, hard core physicists tend to be interesting people.

[Demit]

9. The first 5 words of your post are the most telling ones, imo.

[havocmom]

10. Most self described Taoists/Buddhists I have known were either raised

in the traditions as part of an asian family or came to it later in life after much honest spiritual search and life experience.

What is it about youths doing the searching and experimenting that youths tend to do that annoys you? And, yes, I intended to sound patronizing too. ;)

[oregonjen]

11. Buddhism is much closer to my heart

As an exchange student 19 years ago to Japan, I was moved to tears upon seeing the Daibutsu in Nara. Something inside of me was moved far more than being in a church in the US. Studying Buddhism and being closer to nature was much more fulfilling than the Christian belief in God.

Now, in my late 30's, Buddhism is still a part of my life. For many years, I did feel spiritually disconnected, but with Buddhism, I feel much more connected with myself and nature. Is that so wrong? The whole Christian thing didn't do it for me. Especially now, the Christian religion has been hijacked by the far right and I don't want to have anything to do with it.

For me, it's not a casual devotion. It's not even a devotion, but a way of thinking and being that will teach me throughout my life many lessons in how to be a better person. I'm not devoted to any religion, but feel connected to something spiritually. There is a difference, at least in my eyes. I should also note that I'm married to a Japanese native and have 2 children. We are a bi-cultural family and my children do not have Christianity shoved down their throats. They have moral teachings from me and my husband, who have a mixture of religions to teach from. We don't go to any type of religious gatherings, nor do we intend to in the future.

[petgoat]

14. what is it...that inspires such casual devotion?

What is it about this mysterious Oriental Belief System that inspires such casual devotion from
otherwise spiritually disconnected Western youth?

The answers are right there in your question, Orrex. The kids are spiritually disconnected
because they're dissatisfied with society and their home religion, if any, and here's this intriguing
mysterious body of ancient wisdom with which one may casually affiliate oneself
simply by buying (and not necessarilly even reading) a book, which provides an opportunity for
socializing with like-minded folks to the degree that is desired, and which provides an opportunity
for devotion if desired.

I don't understand why you are so offended by the assertion of parallels between eastern wisdoms
and particle physics. Is it because the people who assert them know nothing of either, or because
you believe these assertions to be wrongheaded?

I don't know how rigorous Fritjof Capra's study of Taoism has been, but he seems to know his
physics.

It sounds like you live in a college town and you're just tired of being waist-deep in sophomores.
It's kids' nature to reach out to grandiose ideas without necessarily putting a great deal of
thought into it. It's all part of growing up. I'd rather see them pursuing right mindedness,
right attention, and right action and dabbling in particle physics than hooking up with some Nazi
militia group.

[Orrex]

17. A reply to everyone so far

My objection is not to "searching and experimenting," as some have phrased it.

My objection is to the kind of mental process fostered by the shallow exploration into unsubstantiated belief-assertions.

Yes, I know that "searching and experimenting" and "seeking/learning" are natural processes, but when the results of those searches are put forth as major spiritual breakthroughs for you and me, I find it tiresome.

Again, I chose the Tao/QED connection because it's based in my experience and because it's particularly bothersome to me. The link between the two is flimsy and metaphorical at best, but it's generally asserted in a way that seeks to equate centuries-old philosophy with evidence-based science in a way that embellishes the former at the expense of the latter.

Although the college-age people I mention are one category, the same flavor of rumination infect serious, intelligent adults who've trained themselves to believe in comforting--though unsubstantiated--things.

Things like talk-to-the-dead mediums, a divinely-inspired book of wisdom, psychic detectives, bullshit "alternative medicine," and a host of others. As I hinted elsewhere in the threat, a culture that embraces uncritical acceptance of palatable falsehoods is ill equipped to face the consequences of ugly truths.

That is my objection.

[kwassa]

27. Shallow thinking is shallow thinking, and that is the problem

whether the thinking is based on religious ideas or scientific ones or anything else, for that matter.

one can be shallow in any area that involves thinking.

[BoneDaddy]

34. Interesting

What I find interesting about your comment "searching and experimenting" is that it would be my guess that you have very limited experience with Buddhism or Taoism. Being that they are religion/philosophies that by their very nature are grounded in direct experience rather than revealed teachings, I seriously doubt you have participated in meditation, tai chi, or anything like that for any period of time. It is just much easier for you to dismiss it outright.

As for Capra, he is quite well known and brilliant and backs up what he states with proof.

[Orrex]

37. I have meditated, and I have examined tai chi

They are physical processes with no verifiable external component. So what?

If you're talking about the movement of chi or qi or prana or bioenergy or whatever, then we're back to magical thinking.

As for Capra, being well-known does not mean being correct. Kevin Trudeau is quite well known, and he's a huckster.

As far as dismissing it outright, well, you've no basis for making that claim. I've examined the evidence presented to me for about a decade and a half, and none of it is any more convincing than the carnival mindreader who guessed that I had my keys in my pocket.

[BoneDaddy]

49. chi is magical thinking?

Meditation and tai chi are much more than physical processes. You really haven't spent much time on experiencing what you criticize. I have been doing martial arts for about 25 years and tai chi for 12 of those years. Chi, human bio-chemical energy is very real as I experience it daily through qigong and my forms. Maybe magical to you, but it a real phenomenon for me.

YOu dismiss much and in doing so never give yourself an opportunity to experience something you couldn't explain away or understand immediately, as if you have the capability to understand the universe and no one else does.

YOu seem to deny any connection between the mind and body and the power that human thought, experience and emotion have upon the phyical body and visa versa. Psychoneuroimmunology is the study of the various interactions between mind and body.

[Orrex]

52. Chi hasn't been demonstrated emprically & you're putting words in my mouth

I don't care if you've been a ninja since 1420. Chi have never been shown to exist as any "energy" separate from the body in which it is claimed to exist, and the feats that you likely attribute to chi (or prana or Reiki) are readily explained through mundane physical processes. That covers so-called "therapeutic touch," while we're at it.

Far from denying a connection between mind and body, I deny any distinction between mind and body. That is, I have never encountered nor been shown any evidence supporting the assertion that the "mind" or "soul" or "thought" exists separate from the brain and body associated with it. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please share it! You can take home a cool million from James Randi, and I won't even ask for a finder's fee.

This marks about the fiftieth time I've been accused in this thread of failing to understand the subject. Well, that's just peachy.

It is not necessary to have exhaustive knowledge of a subject in order to recognize it as bullshit, just as it is not necessary to comprehend the workings of a catalytic converter to recognize that an oncoming car is a danger to you.

[BoneDaddy]

54. LOL

Likewise

[Orrex]

62. My, what a poignant rebuttal (n/t)

[BoneDaddy]

65. WASTE OF MY TIME

Because for me to try and prove to you what I know, experience and participate in every day will be fruitless. This isn't based in some obscure revealed text, this is my experience and because modern science has not been able to empirically prove chi's existence does not mean it does not exist. Chi is guided by the mind yet I think you will have difficulty proving "mind" as well.

[Orrex]

67. Clearly you're a True Believer and beyond all reach of logic or evidence

Countless people have innocently deluded themselves (and many have not-so-innocently deluded others) into believing that the "mind" can "channel" "energy" in all kinds of nifty and useful ways, but there has never been any evidence outside of personal testimony to support the claim that "chi" even exists or that these chi-feats are the result of anything outside of mundane physical processes.

Let's repeat that:

There has never been any evidence outside of personal testimony to support the claim that "chi" even exists or that these chi-feats are the result of anything outside of mundane physical processes.

If you believe it, well that's just super-swell. Show me evidence outside of personal testimony, and I'll consider it.

The positive claim that chi exists but can't be demonstrated empirically is a statement of pure faith and therefore of no value or interest to me.

[BoneDaddy]

70. in this case I am

In this particular case I am, but it is not an issue of faith on a revealed text but based upon my personal experience. And it doesn't matter to me whether or not you think it is real or not.

[Orrex]

72. My "view" may be irrelevant, but your claim *is* still a matter of faith

In essence, you're looking at an experience that is inconsistent with modern empirical understanding of the world, and you're saying that your experience of it trumps all other empirical data. It could be argued that that's a statement of raw egotism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply haven't sought other explanations (rather than outright declaring them incorrect).

Instead, you're claiming that you can somehow detect and manipulate a force totally undetectable by any objective measuring device and which can't be demonstrated outside of personal testimony (yours or others). That's quite a strong statement of faith.

If you believe your claim, then that's lovely. But if you wish to convince others that your claim is correct, then you'll need to do better than asserting proprietary and inexplicable experience of it.

[BoneDaddy]

78. ok

I try not to convince anyone of anything until they experience it. I, too, was skeptical of the claims of tai chi and eastern energy practice until I spent years in training and experienced it myself.

When an 80 year old man at 5'3", bout 140 pds, throws me around like a ragdoll or stands still and I cannot move him at all with all of my strength or when I can feel chi move through my body and outside of it, it is hard for me to deny what I am experiencing.

Where I understand your skepticism about much of the nonsense out there, I don't think you can throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because you cannot prove it does not mean it necessarily does not exist. It either does not exist or it is true and we do not have the ability to measure it at this point.

What was considered science fiction at one point in our history has developed into science. In terms of human medicine, science etc what was once thought to be fantasy or impossible has become reality.

[Orrex]

79. We're making progress!

Don't my skepticism is motivated for pure pigheadedness. I'm skeptical because the claims made by proponents of chi are so strongly at odds with the overwhelming body of empirical evidence that intellectual honesty demands skepticism.

Do you understand the apparent absurdity of the claim that this "energy" moves through and around one's body but can't be detected by any means except by the person who believes in it?

What is the nature of this "energy?" Is it energy? If so, then it is subject to mechanical detection.

I have, to date, never read nor encountered nor even heard of a controlled empirical test in which chi has been demonstrated even to exist, much less perform these amazing stunts. Invariably, even the most seemingly astonishing feats can be explained through mundane physics, and most of the time classical physics! If you can offer an empirical study in support, please do so. Otherwise, claims about chi are no different from claims that Sylvia Browne talks to the dead.

Though I applaud your willingness to reject the bunko claims of hucksters, my rejection of belief in chi is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm simply stating that no empirical evidence has ever been offered in support of chi, while numerous empirical studies have shown that chi does not exist as described by its proponents.

[BoneDaddy]

80. fair enough

I understand it seems unbelievable and I think some of the martial arts stuff out there is couched in mystery and claims of outrageous acts. I think chi exists and is a subtle form of energy that has yet to be able to be detected.

[trotsky]

89. If it's too subtle to be detected,

how can it be powerful enough to affect health?

Radiation is made up of subatomic particles, and large enough doses can have a significant effect on health, yet we can detect it just fine, at levels far, far below that which can even begin to damage DNA.

[BoneDaddy]

95. dunno

Dont know the answer to that Trots, all I know is what I experience is real.

[trotsky]

96. That may be, but...

the placebo effect is also very real. And hallucinations are as real as genuine sensory perceptions. Our senses are unfortunately very limited and subject to interference by chemicals, extraneous stimuli, and even our emotions and desires. That is why some of us tend to think in terms of empirical data - because if it can be demonstrated, we can be that much more confident that it's real. Otherwise we really can't be sure, and that applies equally to little green men, "chi," unicorns, and gods.

[BoneDaddy]

97. I respectfully disagree

I don't experience, subjectively, God or unicorns, but I do with Chi.

[trotsky]

98. I understand.

But other people feel quite certain that they have experienced those other things but not chi.

So there we are.

[BoneDaddy]

105. maybe so...but

I still stick by my experience and it is neither dictated by religion or fanatacism, simply experience, and I was a skeptic in the beginning

[Zhade]

108. You must allow for the possibility that you IMAGINE it's real.

Otherwise, you're not being honest. If there's no objective proof outside of personal experiences - and there isn't, at this point in time - then to claim it's a fact, rather than a suspicion, that chi exists is to state that you know something is true that you can't substantiate.

Or, you could be making the whole thing up. Now, I doubt that, but since I can't get inside your mind, I have no way to test your claims. Therefore, they remain unproven, and possibly not at all what you believe (the proper word to use) them to be.

Not trying to be hostile, just logical.

[Zhade]

107. Surely, if it's real you can provide evidence that it exists.

Otherwise, it's literally all in your head.

[Bill McBlueState]

110. about Capra

Can you say something about his publication record in refereed physics journals?

Claims that he knows a lot about physics are always made by people who themselves don't know much about physics. And his resume looks pretty typical for someone who has the intellectual capacity to earn a Ph.D. in the subject, which while demanding, is not rare.

What I'm getting at is, while he may be a *capable* physicist, is he regarded by other physicists as an especially talented one?

[Zhade]

106. It's also a culture more prone to fall for lies.

Like, say, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", or "bush won 2000 fair and square", or "the Jews are ruining good Germans' lives".

Just sayin'.

[BurtWorm]

21. I actually do know some people who are committed Buddhists.

They don't talk about quantum mechanics generally. They're more interested in "mindfulness"--the way meditation affects their ability to attend. It sounds like crap, but I admire that kind of Buddhism vastly more than the kind you're talking about, which isn't really Buddhism anyway. I've known other self-described Buddhists who were uptight assholes, though, fer sher.

[hunter]

29. Ah hell, I'll be inflammatory

The shallow end of the atheists' pool looks very much the same to me...

"I admit also that every person I've met who's made that assertion was in a college town and between the ages of 18 and ~30, so obviously the demographics may play a part."

What is it about atheism that inspires such casual devotion from otherwise spiritually disconnected Western youth?

:evilgrin:

[Orrex]

33. Not really inflammatory--a valid question

The difference between a shallow and a thoughtful thinker (atheist or whatever) can be readily discerned through discussion and debate. If your debate opponent offers little insight beyond a parroting of gleaned nuggets, then your opponent has, at best, a limited articulation of the subject however strongly felt. If, however, your opponent can discuss the subject in a thorough and insightful fashion, addressing evidence and logic as they support and/or challenge the subject, then your opponent is likely not a shallow thinker on the subject.

Ask me whatever you like about the nature of my atheism and my lack of a belief system: I will field your questions and leave it to you to determine whether I am a shallow dabbler in the subject.

[Strong Atheist]

38. "Ask me whatever you like", "I will field your questions"

ROFLMAO!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

More like refuse to answer simple questions until shamed into it! Talk about the pot and kettle!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Orrex]

40. It's about time Absolute 100% Total Certainty made an appearance here

Tell me again how you're 100% certain about nonverifiable subjects?

And then point me to a question that you asked and which I didn't answer.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

68. Please read this post, because you seem to have read few others

And then point me to a question that you asked and which I didn't answer.

Well lets see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39747&mesg_id=39995

Questions about knowing asked. No answer.

Well perhaps you missed my answer because it was carefully hidden in the first paragraph of my reply to your post.

Here was your question, from post 52 in the thread:

You know things, yes? Or do you know nothing?

And here's my answer, from post 54 in that same thread (a direct reply to 52):

When I say "I know X," that's really shorthand for "to the best of my limited ability to ascertain, I accept the very strong likelihood that X is the case."

Did you read my post? If so, how did you miss my answer?


Regarding this bit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=39747&mesg_id=40153

Telling you that you're incorrect is not the same as calling you a liar. Are you unable to see the difference?

For that matter, you're accusing me of calling you a liar, and in support you cite your own paraphrase of what you believe I wrote. That's hardly compelling evidence.

If you claim that you are a giraffe and I point out your error, am I calling you a liar?

I admit that I've been tempted several times to call you a doofus, but I haven't called you a liar.

[Strong Atheist]

76. Black is white, night is day, saying someone is

lying about what they are telling you is not calling them a liar, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain of ANYTHING. I must be talking to Orrex.

I admit that you EVENTUALLY admitted that you were certain of NOTHING. Took a while, though.

I admit that I've been tempted several times to call you a doofus

Go ahead!:evilgrin:

I PROMISE not to hit alert! I made myself a vow before I joined D.U. to TRY to NEVER alert ANYONE, and I am not going to break it on YOUR account!

BTW, the feeling is mutual. Have a nice, UNCERTAIN day, blowing through those stop lights ('cause you can't be CERTAIN they mean stop, this time), constantly dropping things to see if gravity is still in force, checking the sun to make sure it has not spontaneously disappeared etc.
:evilgrin: :hi:

[Orrex]

77. I have a suggestion for amnesty!

How about this: We can call each other a doofus whenever we like, and neither will call foul or hit alert.

Deal?

[Strong Atheist]

81. Ok.

I was thinking something similar a few minutes ago, but I must admit that I am shocked and surprised that you are willing to be that reasonable with ME, as opposed to being that reasonable with someone else.

Deal!

:toast:


PS: That does not mean I have changed my opinion on your and Meldreads's definition of "certain". I am not willing to be that accommodating!

[Orrex]

82. So noted!

Now, how do we clear it with the admins so that future accusations of "doofus" don't get future messages deleted?

Hmm...

[Strong Atheist]

83. No idea. You have been here longer than I ... nt.

[Orrex]

84. Well, let's try this:

I'll call you a doofus, and then you reply by calling me a doofus. Here goes:

Doofus!

[Strong Atheist]

85. No. But I WILL say that

the mods should not penalize you, because I say that it is ok. for you to call me that.

[Orrex]

86. Hey, wait a minute!

If I call you one, but you don't reciprocate, then I look like the doofus.

I'm certain of that much.

[Strong Atheist]

87. (sigh) ......ok.

doofus

Happy, now?:-(

[Orrex]

88. Now my week is complete! (nt)

[Strong Atheist]

90. "I'm certain of that much."

certain

Yuck, yuck! I am slow today, in some ways, I missed that!


Funny man!

[Orrex]

92. Thank you, thank you

For a comedian, I'm one heck of an atheist.


Please enjoy the rest of the show.

[Orrex]

109. MODERATOR: May I ask why that message was removed?

I don't recall anything anti-TOS about it. It was in reply to me, I didn't have any problem with the content.

Puzzling...

[hunter]

46. I wonder if my dog "lacks a belief system." I don't think so.

But that's just messing around with the definitions and connotations of "belief."

Is their any humanistic and or spiritual component to your atheism?

What are the foundations of your ethics? That's the idea Isaac Asimov was exploring when he wrote his three laws of Robotics. Asimov was an atheist. A few of his robotic characters were very complex; the movie offers only a hint of that.

What does it mean to be human? What is the power of creation? Philip K. Dick explored those ideas quite a bit.

If you can get past the sometimes ugly mobs of people wading in the shallow end of Christianity's dirty pool, you find similar explorations in the Bible.

The story of Adam and Eve wasn't cooked up so that lunatic fundamentalists could make gay-bashing jokes about "Adam and Steve" or deny human evolution. It's a story about self awareness and free will.

I think the greater problem we have in the United States, even greater than our religions or lack of religions, is the rampant anti-intellectualism here. Incurious George W. Bush is a perfect representation of that. This guy who claims to be a Texas oilman got a gentleman's C in bonehead geology for non-science majors, and he seems to be proud of that.

If there were more thoughtful discussions in common everyday life about anything -- science, history, philosophy, religion, etc. -- there wouldn't be so many kids dabbling in the "Tao of Physics" while knowing so little about either physics or Eastern philosophy.

I have some strong opinions about that. From my point of view if you haven't played around with quantum physics to a point where it starts to make some kind of intuitive sense to you (maybe most easily by building and experimenting with a two slit diffraction apparatus) than you're probably not going to accomplish anything new by linking quantum physics to taoism. What you are doing is only play. But play is something humans and most animals do. You don't begrudge people that sort of exploration any more than you might begrudge them beach vollyball games.

[Orrex]

50. Good questions.

Is their any humanistic and or spiritual component to your atheism?

No. At least, not insofar as either transcends verifiable evidence. My answer might benefit from a clearer definition of "spiritual," but I can say broadly that I have no reason to conclude that any "spirit" exists separate from the physical body with which it is associated, except perhaps as a metaphor (i.e., "You could really feel the team spirit in that game.")

What are the foundations of your ethics?

My ethical system is founded in aesthetics and experience and is therefore subject to revision as my aesthetics and experience change. That sounds like a lawyeristic answer, but I don't mean it that way: I form my ethics upon my experience of what generally works and also upon what is pleasing to my existing ethical sense. It just so happens that I gratify my sense of what is pleasing, in part, by being kind to others and inflicting no harm.

I don't assert that my ethics are perfect or based on any absolute foundation. Nor do I assert that they are correct for everyone. However, I am happy to discuss the particulars and I am gratified when someone finds my explanation sufficiently convincing to adopt elements of my ethics.

I didn't see I, Robot, but I found Bicentennial Man to be deeply disappointing (since I loved the short story).

What does it mean to be human?

Look, PKD didn't solve that question in dozens of books or in thousands of pages of Exegesis! I don't know that I can give a great answer in a single post, but here are a few thoughts:

To be biologically human means that one conforms generally to the physical and genetic parameters of the species identified as human, though this is admittedly a somewhat nebulous designator.

To be mentally human means that one is able to communicate and interact with others (themselves identified as human) in a manner generally understood by them. It entails but does not require a linguistic component as well as an ability to empathize.

To be spiritually human is meaningless to me.

(Adam and Eve is) a story about self awareness and free will.

Very true, but IMO the story didn't fully realize that angle until Milton addressed it.

You don't begrudge people that sort of exploration any more than you might begrudge them beach vollyball games.

As long as they keep their Tao/QED ruminations on the volleyball court, I don't care a fig. But when they offer them up as serious explanations of How The World Works, I bristle. And if they make a profit at such hucksterism (Deepak Chopra, Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukof, et al), then I address the subject with, I admit, a degree of aggressiveness.

[hunter]

56. Adam and Eve...

You really can't read the story and not see that it is about self awareness and free will unless you've been previously been conditioned to believe it is a story about something else.

Likewise, if you are conditioned against reading satire in the Bible, you think Jonah is a serious story about a guy who got swallowed by a fish.

I agree with you on the New Age "hucksterism." It's the same as the Old Age hucksterism -- let me sell you some magic. Instead of jumping out of your wheelchair and doing a little dance, we sell you some sort of peace.

Truth is, if people are not at peace, it is often because something about their society or their lives sucks. That's the premise of my own activism. It's a bad thing to "feel good" while doing nothing to fix what is broken.

[BoneDaddy]

60. it was not only that.

Not only was the Adam and Eve story about self awareness it was also a metaphor for the change in gender roles and relationships as society chaged. Adam's first wife was Lilith, who refused to lie beneath him and subjugate herself to a patriarchal system. She was basically cast out and Eve, a more docile, obedient female took her place. It symbolizes the move from a matriarchal system to the patriarchal, nomadic/warrior system of the ancient semites.

[Orrex]

64. I'm not sure that I agree across the board

It's tricky and limiting to declare what a millennia-old myth (spanning just a few lines) really means, at least if one hopes to do so with any confidence in the conclusion.

I could as readily (and with equal justification) assert that it's a parable about children testing the boundaries of permission without ever getting into free will or self-awareness.

At best, we can assert that the myth is consistent with either of those interpretations, as well as a ton of others.


But it was probably incorrect of me to assert that Milton's was the first exploration of that theme.

[thinkingwoman]

91. It's not that tricky really

Lit majors analyze what texts of all ages mean on a regular basis. If you approach the Judeo-Xtian bible as just another lit text, analyzing and declaring and assigning meanings and interpretations become very easy for anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension and analysis. The texts are just not that complicated.

As for your Milton comment...yeah, that was waaaayyyy off base.

edited for bad typing.

[Orrex]

93. I don't know that it was waaaayyyy off base

It was incorrect to assert him as the first explorer of the theme, but it would not be incorrect, IMO, to name him as the most thorough explorer, in terms of literature, of the theme up until his time and for quite some time thereafter.

I'm sensing a bit of a zinger in your tone that you may or may not intend. Is that sense likewise waaaayyyy of base, too?

[hunter]

94. I took a "Bible as Lit" class that was very unsatisfying.

The prof was afraid to take the lid off probably for fear it would turn into something like this forum...

On the other hand I took a science fiction literature class where the proffessor was quite willing to include the Bible, and it was a screamingly fantastic rollercoaster ride whenever he did. Tenure is such a good thing sometimes. Best of all he introduced me to Harlan Ellison... not to his writing, but the actual guy wearing a leather bomber jacket.

[BoneDaddy]

30. wow

somehow I can't help that part of this rant is directed, partially, at me as I mentioned I was a Taoist in a very recent post, addressed quantum physics and made some parallels between them.

Contrary to your assumptions about what this means, I have much more than a passing knowledge of eastern esoteric religions and philosophies, do you? I also suggest you read a book called the Quantum and the Lotus. It will give you plenty of connections between eastern thought and quantum physics, much more than I could do in this post.

Why is it so hard for you to imagine that a culture of people could possibly have insight into the nature of the universe. Do you think you are the only person to have thought deeply on the subject or do you think that everyone who does not think just like you is some deluded religious? I find Taoism fascinating for many reasons. The first verse of the Tao te Ching is uncannily descriptive of the big bang in that the "ten thousand things" (everything)came from the tao or source.

The Buddhist concepts of impermanence, interconnection, interpenetration and so on are not very different from what quantum physicists have discussed and are discussing regarding the nature of universe. Smile

[Boojatta]

31. Big Bang versus Gang Bang

True or false?
"The first verse of the Tao te Ching is uncannily descriptive of sexual intercourse in that the "ten thousand things" (everything) came from the tao or source."

[BoneDaddy]

35. cool

how poetic... it would make sense that "as above so below" that the big bang on a universal level could be seen as an orgasmic wave. Thanks for the insight.

[Boojatta]

59. "could be seen as an orgasmic wave"

You could be creating the ultimate synthesis: the teachings of Buddha and the Orgone energy of Dr. Wilhelm Reich. For someone like you, isn't quantum physics a bit shallow, rigid, and unhip?

[BoneDaddy]

61. lol

Ya ever read the Mass Psychology of Fascism by Reich? Heavy.

[Orrex]

36. Not directed at you--this has been brewing for years

I don't care about "connections" between quantum physics and Eastern philosophy if those connections are metaphorical and allusive, as are all of the so-called connections that I've ever heard put forth. If you have an example of an actual, verifiable, and non-figurative connection, please offer it.

This "uncanny description," as you call it, is no more uncanny or descriptive than any quatrain from Nostradamus, and it's exactly the metaphorical and allusive non-connection that I decry. The "ten thousand things" issuing from a single source is no more usefully descriptive of the Big Bang, as described by modern cosmological theory, than is the first book of Genesis.

It is not "so hard" for me to imagine that an ancient culture unlocked the secrets of modern cosmology. I can imagine it just fine. However, I do not believe it because there's no good evidence that this it is the case.

[applegrove]

48. In my experience - people are easily moved when they meet up

with buddhists because of the life philosophy that permeates the lives of buddhists. And when you are young - you are more open to good experiences. And more impressed with those who live out their lives with the values you hold dear.

Some people try social justice, volunteerism, political activity, etc. during that decade too. It is a decade for exploration. And a decade for taking ownership of who you are and how you cope in a world that is not as secure as the world of a child. A decade for openess. And for those brought up in the traditional christian north America - in your twenties may be the first time you come across Buddhism. in your twenties is often the time kids come across cities and other institutions outside of your primary family unit.

Makes perfect sense.

[Orrex]

53. That is, hands-down, the best answer yet given for my question

Nicely done! :hi:

[applegrove]

58. And practicing the philosophy or the religion as a devout - that depends

on whether you be agnostic biologically or devout biologically.

Many agnostics go to christian church and try and live christian values - they don't take the bible literally. So why don't you lump them into your group of agnostics. Do you not think that someone who has "dallied" in buddhism learns something - some tools for live.

Tis very hard to find people who devoutly practice buddism. But there are places you can go where they do. No a huge evangelical thing buddism. So your first experience would have to be passive. Then you seek out deeper relationship with the practice if you are so enclined.

What you really seem to be saying is that as people are growing, they are growing. And influenced somehow by the various belief systems they encounter. Many encounter humanists and become that. Many find one philoshy or another fits in with how they always lived their lives - they find a philosophical home. Many find a deeper religious home somewhere. And yes - there are people who come back from Asia and live-out their lives one way or another.

I don't know the point of this post. When you are young you individuate. When facing strife - many seek religion (all throughout their lives). To many in Asia over the last 100 years - that has meant to become Christian - passively or actively. Just that the choice to be so - isn't an option till you go out in the world. Or meet up with real practising buddists. Mind expanding or perhaps "home". One very human attraction to a seemingly new take on life. Blow me down with a feather! How could that happen?

Are the Xtian right as angry at buddhists as they are at humanists?

[oregonjen]

57. I agree!

You put in words what I couldn't. Thanks for that. :thumbsup:

[crikkett]

75. what's casual devotion?

What's casual devotion? a fad? an oxymoron?

But what is it about this mysterious Oriental Belief System that inspires such casual devotion from otherwise spiritually disconnected Western youth?

[manic expression]

99. Give me a break

What are you talking about? Is it wrong to apply knowledge to the world? That is what you are opposing.

It is not "bullshit" (as you so eloquently put it) to show the parallels between science and the bigger picture. This is not an invalid thought, and any mature person could reject it without resorting to such myopic statements.

What is even funnier is you have the opportunity to engage such points in an actual discussion, but you choose to spout your asinine opinions elsewhere. Further, you have not been able to really make a real argument for the contrary, showing your inability to do so.

Instead of saying such meaningless things, why not deal with the actual points? Why not say WHY? Why not THINK? If you decide not to make a real argument and would rather engage in this sort of rhetoric, that is sad.

If someone is a Buddhist or Taoist, they are because that fits their views. People don't believe something to be "cool", they usually do it because that is what they think. You do it, too...only you are spiteful of different beliefs.

[catbert836]

101. I assert the universe has a higher order to it.

And I think that the natural laws of the universe suggest a certain higher order to the universe, part of which is the Tao, as well as karma.
However, I don't think these conclusions are logical. I'm of the opinion that logic cannot explain everything in our universe (similar to Romanticism and Immanuel Kant). As a result, I'm completely comfortable saying that my beliefs don't have to be backed up by logic. That's the point of the word "faith", isn't it?
Yes, I am a Buddhist/Taoist/Agnostic, as you say, but in fact I have read SEVERAL books on the subject ;-) (and seen the Matrix WAY too many times), but I don't try to fallaciously base my faith on logic, because it's imposible.

[madeline_con]

103. I only know 2 Buddhists, but

both are sincere, chanting shrine in their home Buddhists who don't seem to be doing anything just to be cool or esoteric. :shrug:

[onager]

111. My usual unpaid commercial...

To see what a working quantum physicist thinks of the Capras and Chopras, do a google on Victor Stenger.

Stenger worked on the teams that discovered the quark and other sub-atomic particles.

And for those who might think he's just an Evil Old Materialist, he also holds a PhD. in Philosophy and teaches that at the university level...along with physics.

He's written several books about the abuse of quantum physics by the mysticists. One of the best is "Quantum Quackery."

And in direct contradiction to another claim by Magical Thinkers, Stenger asserts that science has already proven the non-existence of god(s). That's the subject of another book.