The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
I would love to get a thread going on this talk. Harris gave this presentation on mindfulness and the present moment at the Global Atheist Conference in April this year. I would love it if other regular commenters here (or anyone else, of course) - whether religious, non-religious or semi-religious - took the trouble to listen to it and report on your experiences. From my perspective the way in which mindfulness, as part of science-based positive psychology, is currently being mainstreamed is one of the most encouraging developments currently occurring, and this talk is a wonderful illustration of this trend.
As fair warning: the talk contains several digs at religion, which the religious are likely to find irritating. But you can notice this as an object of consciousness
I think this is a brilliant attempt at rationalizing away the unpleasant prospect of death. Basically he is exhorting the listeners to enjoy and savor life (which is a very useful attitude of course) instead of worrying about death.
This is all beautiful and good, but I am afraid it is like telling an alcoholic to drink orange juice and forget beer. Every alcoholic knows that orange juice is better than beer... but they still want beer.
I savor life, and enjoy the present... but I also want to see my parents again. Any system of belief that offers me some hope to see them again is much more comfortable, addictive and useful than rationalization of death. Useful, in the sense that it offers an easy way to make peace with death and focus on life.
Therefore, besides savoring the present, I look at the unlimited possibilities of future science and "magic" technologies in the hope that our descendants may be able to resurrect the dead, and I adopt a consistent system of belief, compatible with science, centered on this possibility. Of course I am aware that my system of belief is unfalsifiable by design, and therefore not part of science, but it beats rationalizing death.
"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Rage is a useful emotion if it pushes to action, and I think we, as a species, must begin to take action.
Continued: Sam is trying to offer his fellow atheists a way to make peace with their future death, and with the death of their loved ones. I hope he will persuade many atheists, because I am sure they will live happier lives if they accept his mental discipline. But for believers, I am afraid this is not good enough.
I don't quite agree that this is an attempt at rationalisation. I do agree that he is exhorting fellow atheists to enjoy and savour life...and not only exhorting, but also offering effective techniques for doing this. This is the difference between that and telling an alcoholic to drink orange juice: just exhorting them to do so is of limited utility, I agree, but practise those mindfulness techniques and you can overcome all manner of urges and addictions, including addiction to those mental processes that make death so unbearable.
I also agree that his focus on mindfulness as therapy for thanatophobia enables a scepticism regarding transhumanist aspirations, which like you I find partially unsatisfying, mainly because I am unconvinced that his scepticism is justified. And I agree that rage is useful as a motivator for positive change, when suitably channelled. (Hence my emphasis on the need for positive visions.)
But you don't have to be a theist in order to have the same reservations as we do concerning the ease (defeatism?) with which he is willing to accept death, and nor do you have to be an atheist to benefit from the mindfulness techniques that he very ably demonstrates, especially if you haven't been exposed to the more mystical religious traditions from which they have been adapted.
Another point I want to make is that, whatever stance we take on religion in general, his point about the need to decouple jewels of religious tradition such as mindfulness from all the superstition and false belief is essential, and it's a concern that I think lies at the heart of militant atheism. It is a fact that religion, as practised even today, is to a very large extent polluted by pre-enlightenment belief systems that just refuse to die, despite all the evidence that has come to light in the mean time.
It seems to me that the atheist tradition has come furthest in achieving this, and this lecture (building on the insights of atheist psychologists like Jonathan Haidt) is evidence of this.
@Peter, as Woody Allen might say, I don't want to "overcome addiction to those mental processes that make death so unbearable." I want to overcome death.
I don't know what reality is, or truth, and I don't much care. I only know of more or less useful models of reality, where "useful" is defined as able to provide 1. ability to function well in life, and 2. happiness and relief from "life's heartache" (borrowed from Charlie Stross.
If atheists can be more functional and happy by adopting Harris' mental techniques, I am happy for them! But I will stick to my own mental techniques, because they work much better for me. So, I am back to my usual point: choose your own way to think, and accept that others choose their own.
That's fair enough, Giulio. You have found a belief system (way of thinking) that works for you, and I really don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with comments such as the latest one by Stefan Parner on the religious liberty and discrimination thread, which as I noted in response I found disrespectful, false, and bigoted.
Speaking for myself, I'm interested in overcoming death, especially now that at looks as though it might actually be feasible, but I also find mindfulness techniques useful in all sorts of ways. Not that I want to be boringly evangelical about this, but when something works for you it's natural to want to share it with others. A bit like you and religion, I guess
Posted by CygnusX1 on 06/09 at 10:53 AM
Sam Harris is bit of a comedian and entertainer, full of gags, yet his gags are still lame.
What is he offering here? An hour of telling us what we already know? I already have a vacuum cleaner thank you!
He is telling me that people die, and that death is bad.. and that we should accept and deal with death.. the audacity of this fellow is beyond measure?
Most of my family is now dead.. and he is telling me??
"without death faith based religion would be impossible"
Religions, reliant upon aged doctrines, become concrete in these doctrines used to provide and protect consistency, a grounding for beliefs and to support and substantiate faith? Yes this is the downside. It is time… to rethink… to re-evaluate.. and to evolve.. as humans always have and hopefully still will? (But silly me.. I have faith and hope.. how useless and redundant my thoughts?)
"The reality of your life is now". Yes, yet on this predilection alone bears the shadow of the existential threat. No belief, no faith, and no action, is also a road to apathy and iPads and decadence to the point of failure of progress and the demise of humanity?
"Atheism is a way of clearing space for better conversations", yes but it is secularism, (and putting the bias to one side), which more accurately, (and more efficiently), does this?
Sam is simply spinning us what the Buddha has also previously professed, and as the Hindu vedantin has also professed for thousands of years, and he has the audacity to convince us he is selling us something new here? Read some Jiddu Krishnamurti whom professed all of this back in the sixties, (and even he was merely recapitulating).
There are two intuitions that may be taken from the teachings of the Buddha, (if you are open minded and not so dogmatic?) – one is a path to Nirvana/Nibbana, (not quite nothingness Sam, more like cosmic union and sedate retirement of potential?), and the other is the acceptance of death and demise.. yes! I hear you scoff. Stop to question the Buddha on reincarnation, and history tells he would not be drawn too profoundly into the debate, (at least I can find nothing to substantiate that he widely professed reliance upon reincarnation?)
The Buddha also dissuaded those that would suggest that "suicide is painless" – no, he devoutly shunned the notion that folks should use suicide to speed up reincarnation and rebirth, and in the same and similar way that Christianity does not promote suicide as a fast track to communion?
And then we have a meditation class in the middle of this lost and direction-less presentation !!!
*Taps fingers.. makes Coffee.. taps fingers*
The whole tenet of Buddhism and Hinduism is to "live" and exist in the moment – just read some. But not merely from a magazine like Sam.
Not so much a Jedi but a Sith
What drives the goals for longevity and immortality Sam? Hope? Faith? Even a soupsong of antiquated religious memes? The search for ontological meaning and end to existential angst?
There is no such thing as "no thing" Sam – yet perhaps this is a doctrine of faith that a true Atheist does subscribe to and believe in? (*shudders*) Yet may I remind you of the conservation of energy, of information even? Of shaded and grey memories of those long lost, yet still held dear? Of quantum information deep, deep, down and scattered along the cosmic road of causality and progression through time and space, ready and awaiting some miraculous cosmic engineering to return to pick up the pieces?
Life is deemed direction-less without hope? Without faith in hope and belief in some "thing"? So what does Atheism offer then, (an age old argument, yet I still have no answer as yet?)
Disparities in the "luck of the draw" of human existence – iPads… hope of escape? And admittedly you have a giggle that this does not affect you personally nor your comfort zone – this is the real danger, the real decadence Sam?
Sam naïvely makes the point "that it is up to us to make the world a better place" – yes, but he is missing the point that for those that cannot escape the iPad production dross, they only have hope - presently? God, (the ideal?), does not make iPads, he is not a shareholder.. it is indeed men that are greedy and selfish apes, and not merely theists may I add?
Sam is not going to hold his breath waiting for mind uploading and longevity engineering, (the "text book" cynic), and indicates his motivation not to lift a hand or incentive to help.. yet sniggers at the prospect of also taking advantage of any future possibilities..? (Yes Sam these hopes and dreams were all a part of the militant atheism master plan).
Death is certain, taxes are certain.. thus Atheism is truth?
Sam and his pursuit of objective morality? Whatever happened there, does anyone know?
Better to let the intellects free and "clear the secular space" for progressive conversation.. indeed Jonathan Haidt has more to offer, and in far less than an hour.
Come on Peter, I don't think CygnusX1's post is so disrespectful or unpleasant, and he is right on the parallels between this talk and Krishnamurti's teachings (and the whole Eastern tradition, all the way back to Buddha and Hinduism).
The same things have been said also in the New Age community (which also borrowed them from Eastern philosophy) for decades.
Accusing Harris of being a Snake Oil salesman and claiming he was premiering mindfulness as something new when he clearly presented it as something adapted from religious traditions: how is this not disrespectful or unpleasant? In my view this quality of comment has no place on a site like this.
@Peter - yes, I missed the snake oil bit. That is disrespectful indeed.
Advice to CygnusX1, from an old hand with some diplomatic training and experience: Avoid words that may be perceived as offensive, unless you _want_ to offend.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 06/09 at 12:23 PM
Thanks Giulio!
You know, with all of your previous rants concerning "thought police" here at IEET I never really took this seriously, and I kinda thought you were exaggerating.. now I see the light of truth!
It would appear that if comments and conversation do not lean in favour of certain parties here at IEET, then dolls are thrown from prams, and "Liberal" protestations in the name of reason, progress and common good are used as rallying cries to ban and sanctify?
I thought my critique was rather fitting also, and with tongue firmly in cheek
:0p
Plus, I have provided more than enough food for thought and further conversation – perhaps this is what really upsets?
Maybe you should take your tongue OUT of your cheek and start engaging in polite, cilivised discussion, i.e. of the sort that is more compatible with the "universal values" you claim to espouse.
In other words: cut out the sarcasm, the insinuations, the accusations, and just tell us what you believe on the substance. If you disagree, say so clearly, and say why.
What's the worst that can happen?
Posted by hankpellissier on 06/09 at 03:16 PM
Cygnus - Your posting here has severely annoyed Peter and even Giulio says you are disrespectful this time.
I took out your "Snake Oil" statement
I don't have time to moderate you line by line so from now on, if I see anything rude in your comments I will delete your entry entirely.
I can either spend an hour a day moderating people in the comment section, or use the same time to post an article that gets 3,000+ readers.
I have to go with the latter - it is my job. If you post things that are suspected of disrespect, I will cut them completely and get back to my real work.
Posted by hankpellissier on 06/09 at 03:26 PM
Cygnus -- I also took out other info in your posting, other than the Snake Oil.
Final Warning - don't make me do this repeatedly, you are wasting my time.
Posted by hankpellissier on 06/09 at 06:57 PM
Stefan - thanks for your understanding (I'm referring to a comment I saw somewhere from you, not sure where), I am happy to have your respectful participation here.
Cygnus and iPan - you are welcome here as well, under the same conditions. I do not, of course, appreciate you bad-mouthing me to James Hughes, KurzweilAI, and Google+, but it is approximately what I expected.
@Hank - I see that you started to moderate CignusX1 and Stefan.
This is not how I would handle moderately disrespectful comments, but I will not interfere in your job.
Please moderate "Singularity Utopia" for the comment like "People who link Transhumanism/Singularity to religion are exhibiting a defect of reason," and similar, in Gabriel's thread. This comment has severely annoyed me, and I want to see a public warning similar to what you wrote to CygnusX1 and Stefan.
I will inform you of other disrespectful comments (I have seen a lot of disrespectful comments, but I have to find them), and I trust you will apply the same moderation.
I am sure you see where this is heading.
Your moderation policy is your choice. You can choose to moderate only very rude personal attacks, or you can choose to moderate also vaguely disrespectful comments. But whatever choice you make, I insist that it must be fair and treat all "camps" equally.
<b>I will not accept a partisan moderation policy.</b>
I trust I made my point clear, please let me know if it is understood.
The system ate the boldface in my previous comment, but the point I am making is important enough to try again. I see that we have a general problem with html tags today, so here it is in boldface:
I'm not trying to speak for Hank here, nor wishing to contradict your call for a non-partisan moderation policy or your remarks about disrespectful comments by those opposing religion. Obviously, being human, we are all more sensitive to slurs cast by the "other side" on "our side".
I do, though, want to clarify my reason for singling out the above comment from CygnusX1. If this was an isolated incident then I would not have bothered: I would either have let it pass, or told him politely why I objected to the tone of the comment. But it wasn't. As I've pointed out previously, I have been subjected to persistent and relentless negativity and unpleasantness from CygnusX1 ever since I started commenting here somewhat more than a year ago. I don't know why, and I don't particularly care to. I don't get it from anyone else, even from people like Alex with whom I have frequently crossed swords.
Of course, none of this _required_ me to start getting heavy and calling for his comments to be moderated. It's not like it's some kind of existential threat to my reputation or something. But one of my motivations for commenting here is that I enjoy it, and this enjoyment is severly compromised when the discussion is polluted by repeated, personal slurs.
re "Obviously, being human, we are all more sensitive to slurs cast by the "other side" on "our side"."
Of course, but part of the job of a moderator is to resist this (understandable) bias.
I co-moderate many online discussion spaces, including the very popular KurzweilAI Forum. Can you imagine how many posts and comments I, personally, strongly disagree with? But I do my best to resist my own biases and treat all posters equally.
re "have been subjected to persistent and relentless negativity and unpleasantness from CygnusX1"
And I have been subjected to persistent and relentless negativity and unpleasantness from other posters. If CygnusX1 is moderated, I strongly insist that these other posters are also moderated.
re "one of my motivations for commenting here is that I enjoy it"
So do I. But if Hank wants to adopts a partisan moderation policy, I am out of here.
Posted by hankpellissier on 06/10 at 04:43 AM
Giulio --
I am just like you -- I post articles and comments all the time, that I strongly disagree with.
I have no plans to discontinue doing that -- I have merely excised statements that I consider disrespectful.
just let me know if you think certain posts should be moderated, and I will consider it.
Looking forward to your next article -- anything coming up next week? I am on vacation so I am trying to plan several days in advance.
What I said: I want these statements by Singularity Utopia in the comments to Gabriel's last article removed:
"people who think radical tech progress (Transhumanism/Singularity) is a religion, they have no comprehension of logic."
"People who link Transhumanism/Singularity to religion are exhibiting a defect of reason."
and a public warning sent to their author, similar to the public warnings sent to CignusX1 and Stefan.
I will send you a more complete list later.
I am working on an article on "Cosmists vs. Terrans: the first shots," but whether or not I am still here next week depends on how you choose to handle this.
@Giulio re "And I have been subjected to persistent and relentless negativity and unpleasantness from other posters"
It's up to you of course what you want to do about that. CygnusX1's commenting style had become a problem for me, so I took action, for reasons I have explained. Let's hope the problem is now solved, in which case you might want to take similar action to address any similar problems you have with other commenters.
I'm sorry that all this has caused Hank to be bad-mouthed on other fora. I don't think he deserves it.
@Peter re "I'm sorry that all this has caused Hank to be bad-mouthed on other fora."
Hank is a great person and a very good friend and I am also sorry to see him bad-mouthed on other fora.
What I replied on the KurzweilAI Forum earlier today is:
"Religion is a very hot topic at IEET, and debates on religion are always intense (not nearly as intense as all debates here though;-)
Hank is a committed atheist, and he personally finds disrespectful comments by believers more annoying than disrespectful comments by atheists. This personal attitude is understandable, we are all humans.
But a partisan moderation policy is not acceptable in a public forum. I made this very clear in my last comment.
Let's see how things evolve."
And:
"[] our attitude on hot topics like religion/atheism, libertarianism/socialism, is largely determined by raw emotional reactions and not so much by rational considerations.
I think the only rational position is to accept that others see the world in different colors, and try to work together when possible, on a case by case basis, to make it a better place."
Re "our attitude on...religion/atheism...is largely determined by raw emotional reactions"
I think there's also an issue of hard-wiring. I'm convinced that there's an innate personality spectrum according to the extent to which one views the world in a more or less interpersonal way. For those who view it in a more interpersonal way, theism may be more natural than atheism. Just how "hard" the hard-wiring is is questionable, though, the brain being plastic.
Another point to make is that the debate is not, or at least shouldn't be, between "atheism" and "religion". It is between atheism and theism, and/or between religion and those opposed to religion. In the latter context I still think we lack a coherent, agreed definition of the word "religion", although Gabriel Rothblatt's article is a step forward.
Posted by André on 06/11 at 04:24 AM
I will answer to Pete's call about commenting on this one. I will try my best not to irritate too many readers.
I think that Sam Harris made several important mistakes - which invalidate the purpose of his (quite long) speech.
His argument goes like this: (1) religions exist to allow men to make sense of their own death, and cope with the loss of their beloved ones. (2) atheists cannot accept religious explanations (3) rational people should notice that death happens outside the stream of instantaneous consciousness, and therefore is irrelevant (4) atheists can use mindfulness techniques to focus on the present moment, and neutralize all the possible negative mental events connected with the anticipation/revival of death/loss.
I will criticize each part separately.
(1) Is just false. Some people tend to treat "religion" and "contemporary American Christianity" as synonyms, but this is highly inappropriate. Human groups devised many, different religious cults. Many of these cults do not really focus on personal death, they not provide any consolation, and therefore cannot be honestly interpreted as therapeutic falsehoods. Many ancient cults (Greek and Roman civic religions, for example, between the most influential ones) implied that individual consciousness perished with death (only glorious actions lived on), and provided no idea of salvation, redemption, or rescuing from the inherently tragic human condition. Many oriental religious doctrines make quite clear that people do not move to better, ethereal locations after death.
(2) I might agree with such claim - but I would rather say that USUALLY atheists cannot accept TRADITIONAL religious explanations.
(3) The premise is obviously true, or at least quite hard to deny with reasonable arguments. A few years ago, Epicurus already stated succinctly that death is nothing for us - because, where there is death, we are not there anymore. The next step seems to be a mental liberation - however, it is nothing but escapism. Epicureans always said that death is nothing. However their everyday actions, their (very natural) attempts to avoid death have been giving away their feelings about the idea of personal disintegration. If death was REALLY irrelevant - it would be foolish to make even the smallest effort to avoid it. Truth is that - death matters. The irrecoverable destruction, no matter how painless, of our consciousness is an essential, tragic fact. And it is very, very relevant for the formation of our ethical judgment, and our plans.
(4) Why should we waste so many hours of our existence to meditate, to focus on the immediate content of our aesthetic experience? Only to be prepared for something irrelevant? Only to minimize stress when finally our own death will be imminent, or when our beloved ones will be dead or dying? Maybe mindfulness meditation is not a religious practice, strictly speaking - but it really has the same function of one. It makes us calmer, it makes us accept death. Ironically enough, these meditation techniques have been developed and perfected by Buddhist monks, within a very specific religious framework. Sure, I recognize the therapeutic value of this meditation for a number of conditions. Just I tend to consider this as another attempt to veil a bitter truth.
There is nothing acceptable about death. And as Giulio correctly points out, we do not need another fatalistic attempt to sedate our wish to transcend our limits. If we do not like to die, and we do not want our beloved ones to die - we should work hard to overcome this fact. Thanks to technology, of course. Surely not with some wishful meditation.
@André re "If we do not like to die, and we do not want our beloved ones to die - we should work hard to overcome this fact. Thanks to technology, of course. Surely not with some wishful meditation."
I mostly agree with your post, but here there is a problem. Those of us who are not very young anymore know that, for us, immortality technologies will come too late. Also, our loved ones are already dead. These are facts.
Sure, we can contemplate immortality for future generations. This can make us happy, but not happy enough.
In order to cope with the idea of death, we need (at least I do) to contemplate the possibility that future civilizations with God-like power (I just call them Gods) may use future magic technologies (we call them with names like Quantum Archaeology, but we don't really know what these names mean) to rescue us and our loved ones from death.
Our science is beginning to consider this possibility, and I think future science and technology will provide solid foundations for all the promises of religion. It is interesting that Gods were kicked out the back door of superstition, but they may come back through the main door of science.
Speaking for myself, I'm not capable of taking much comfort from Giulio's "future magic technologies" because it just seems too remote. By contrast I do find mindfulness meditation helplful in dealing with anxiety in general, including anxiety caused or exacerbated by thoughts regarding my mortality and that of loved ones (both alive and already deceased).
My understanding of Harris's argument was slightly different to yours, André. I did not hear him saying that religions exist solely in order to help people cope with death, but that this role was main thing that religion was still doing better than anything else, and therefore that IF atheists want atheism to be embraced more widely - and remember he was speaking to an atheist conference - then they need to find ways to address this.
I'm not sure what part of the presentation you're referring to with "atheists cannot accept religious explanations". As so often there is a definitional issue here: what do we regard as a "religious explanation"? I didn't hear him say that death was irrelevant, but the fourth claim you attribute to him does cohere with my own memory of his message, and indeed is what I understood as the core of that message, so the rest of this comment will address your criticism of that specific claim.
You mention the "therapeutic value" of mindfulness meditation. From my perspective and experience, its therapeutic value depends very much on the purpose with which you engage in it. My experience is that regular practice helps us to develop the mental disciplines required to be more effective at getting what we want. If that is to feel better about the inevitability of one's own death, it helps you do that. If it is rather to help you to pursue immortality, in spite of all the obstacles and ridicule that inevitably arises, it helps you do that.
Come to think of it the term "neutralise" in your summary of what Harris claims is probably stronger than he intended, and certainly stronger than what I would regard is warranted. But it does make such mental events that much more manageable. He probably didn't express this very precisely, but I still think he did an excellent job at getting across the basic idea, and I still find it very encouraging that knowledge of these techniques is being mainstreamed in this way. You are absolutely right in emphasising the Buddhist tradition as a key propagate and perfected of these techniques, but what I find exciting is how they have now been placed within a much more scientific, evidence-based framework.
@Peter re "I think it very much depends on the individual."
Pleeease Peter, leave my lines to me, you make me feel not needed
Posted by André on 06/11 at 12:54 PM
@Giulio
"In order to cope with the idea of death, we need (at least I do) to contemplate the possibility that future civilizations with God-like power [...]"
Quite true. I also do not think I will live enough to see personally such advancements. On the other hand, we already already have a few God-like powers, from the perspective of human observers living only few generations ago. Unimaginable actions like flying, walking on the moon, watching and listening to people far away, listening to the voices of the dead - are already here. Who knows what the future has in store for our grand-grandchildren. It is reasonable to assume that - unbelievable actions for contemporary men will be rather common tomorrow.
@Peter
I will focus on what I believe is the crucial point. Harris does claim that death is irrelevant. Or better said - he claims that, thanks to certain techniques, we can better understand how irrelevant death is to ourselves. Of course this is not only Harris, we have many different religious and philosophical traditions that follow similar logical path. They are not wrong, by any means. They have a certain consistency - and their principles are far from being unreasonable. Quite the opposite. They are very useful - especially now that, as you said, neurophysiology intervenes with scientific contents. Just, it is really not my cup of tea. I would know all along why I am doing it, and it would feel a bit like trying to fool myself. But, again, maybe that is just me. Most likely it can work great with other individuals
By the way, have you really been trying this personally for some time? Have you done everything by yourself? Do you feel some concrete improvements?
"By the way, have you really been trying this personally for some time? Have you done everything by yourself? Do you feel some concrete improvements?"
Yes, no, yes.
With my Christian upbringing I prayed regularly and was also introduced to meditation. Also being a musician (in my youth) and mathematician requires mental disciplines that are closely associated with what we now call (and Buddhists have long called) mindfulness.
A few years ago my medical doctor taught me Ericsonian hypnosis, which did wonders for my digestive system. Later I read The Happiness Trap by Russ (not Sam!) Harris, which put the whole thing on the firmest evidential foundation from my perspective and also embedded it into a wider framework for getting the most out of one's life. I think it's pretty universally beneficial for anyone who (i) needs it and (ii) is willing and able to actually do it. If you're not someone who finds your emotions, verbal/non-verbal thoughts or urges get in the way of what you really value then don't bother, but otherwise I'd say it's worth a try. Without it, I'd probably still be stuck in a boring office job.
I take all your other points, subject to two questions (for reflection rather than for debate, necessarily). 1. What are you really getting by refusing to "fool yourself"? 2. What is the lie, really? Where is the falsehood?
@Peter/André re "1. What are you really getting by refusing to "fool yourself"? 2. What is the lie, really? Where is the falsehood?"
I don't think fooling yourself is always a bad thing. am inclined to agree with Peter here. If these meditation techniques work for him, then they are his local, personal truth. Asking whether they are True or False in a general, global ontological sense, is rather pointless and in my opinion also meaningless.
Everyone who practices sport knows that, if you want to win a game, you must put yourself in a mental disposition where you know that you will win. Not _hope_ (which makes things worse), but _know_ that you will win, just like you know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Those who can practice this mental discipline (which is much more difficult than it sounds) win more games.
Posted by André on 06/12 at 04:51 AM
@Peter
Thanks for sharing your personal experience in the field of meditation. I will definitely try to learn more about it. I am not sure I will put anything in practice - also because my boring, office job leaves me little time for myself in general (and when I am at home, I prefer to spend time with my wife and my daughter). However, you indeed lit my (theoretical) interest in the subject.
About your two questions :
1. I am depriving myself of an increased psychological well-being, for the sake of what I believe is a superior adherence to reality. I am not sure that I can choose otherwise. The anxiety connected with the notion of my future individual disintegration comes from different sources. One of its cognitive pillars is my mental representation of future events. This representation is essential materialistic, and it does accept the existence of homeostatic structures independent from material elements. Therefore, I know that my perspective access to the external world and to the structure of my memories will collapse one day - annihilating both the world (as I know it) and my mental form. The aesthetic joy of being alive will be gone - and this is what bothers me, as a currently alive organism. Someone connects such feelings to pathological narcissism, but I strongly disagree. From what I see, (almost) all lifeforms show clearly a certain attachment to their being alive, no matter how much self-esteem they have. We might call it - survival instinct, self-preservation, lust for life. It is the most obvious feeling in the world, for anyone whose existence is not in constant pain.
Ignoring these future representations by focusing on the present moment does not change the accuracy of those representations. Unless I am totally mistaken, and my materialistic approach is just wrong (which might be indeed the case, but I have no way to determine it now). So we have two possible scenarios. If my materialistic approach is wrong - then everything is already safe, I do not need to bother. But if my approach is right, no matter how much I focus on the present moment, one day everything will be lost.
It would feel a bit like being tied to a railway, knowing that the train will come eventually, but refusing to look into the distance, and focusing instead on the beautiful yellow flower right next to my nose (this makes a nice Zen story, by the way). Probably it would be the best thing to do, it would allow me to take the most out of my excruciatingly limited experience. However, I would know that I am looking at the flower ONLY because I'd rather ignore the incoming train. That flower is not so important to me. I am purposefully trying to see it as important, only because it is the only beautiful thing I am going to experience. In truth, I know that it's just a stupid flower. Maybe I can try (in vain) to free myself from the railway...? Even if the outcome will the same, at least I have been consistent with my survival instincts, with what I am.
2. I think that I, somehow, expressed already what I consider falsehood, or a lie. A false mental representation does not match the external reality. Of course, establishing these mismatches is something far from trivial. Nevertheless, I still think that is possible to speak about objectivity.
That said, I agree with Giulio. I am just telling how these issues relate to my personality. In general, without an individual human counterpart - truth, falsehood, meditation are just empty, meaningless concepts. So, yes, if they work for someone, they have all the legitimacy in the world. Obviously, I am not telling to anyone to avoid meditation. And I do not consider fools those who do it. Just, as I said, I would have to win many psychological resistances before being able to meditate properly.
The oncoming train analogy is very enlightening, I think, I that it is a vivid, sped-up version of what we all do really experience.
One of the things I love about the way Russ Harris treats the subject in The Happiness Trap is that he clearly states that he does not see mindfulness as an end in itself, but rather as a way to lead a more fulfilling life.
So going back to the train analogy, the question is: what would make for a more fulfilling experience, for that indeed excruciatingly short time?
There is one crucial difference, though. Our survival instinct actually serves us quite well in such extreme events. Your hyper-adrenalin-charged brain will be very rapidly looking for any kind of action that is even remotely hopeful, and when it finds it your body will spring into action. Unfortunately, our instincts tend to serve us much less well in the kind of slow-burn situations we face in day-to-day life, including the grim and relentless process of ageing, morbidity and, eventually, death. Basically our minds tend to do the same thing: rapidly identify any old half-baked action that looks like a solution, even if it's as stupid as, say, fighting with your spouse or posting a snarky comment on a website, and then our bodies spring into action. We think it's because it's "just how we are" (or worse, deny that it's happening at all), but in reality it's because we haven't trained our minds to be more patient, or have allowed ourselves to get OUT of training. (That happens to me, a lot.)
To put it more simply: the point of gazing at the flower is not as an alternative to escape, but to give our minds the space and tranquility to come up with solutions that actually work.
Posted by JDLaw on 06/15 at 06:40 PM
But religions are barbarous. Is the atheist response to the barbarous religion to try to out do it with even greater disdain and barbarianism.
I think atheist like Sam forget that in many ways modern science has alreeady debunked local realism. I find it funny that most atheists and religious zealots alike, however, are still willing to argue in favor of local reality without even realizing it. They just need to stop and think about it for a minute and realize that causation is just a construct of locality and locality is only a logical construct. Matter and energy need causation. Yet, belief in a local reality is inapposite when considering causation because something cannot be caused by nothing. This cause of this nothing we call reality is amazing.
So, when Sam says "nothing" happens when you die, I find his statement pretty profound, while at the same time feel like he has very little understanding about what "nothing" actually means. He speaks as if present moments actually exist and then has to admit that they don't.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog